Legal Opinion
Eaton Loan & Home Aid Co. v. Wespiser
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 7, 1935No. 86PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*692OPINION
By THE COURT
The first proposition urged by appellant is the failure of the court to give notice to any of the defendants of the motion of the plaintiff at the time of the appointment of the receiver. We have held in Madigan et v The Dollar Building & Loan Company, 49 Oh Ap, 69, (15 Abs 459) (Ohio Bar Assn. Report April 8, 1935) Ohio Law Abs, January 13, 1934, that where notice is required as a prerequisite to the appointment of a receiver, it is a jurisdictional requirement. The motion, supported by affidavit, set out a tax delinquency; that none of the proceeds of the farm were being…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Williams v. MarmorIllinois Supreme Court · 1926
- Winnisimmet Trust, Inc. v. LibbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Hathaway v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
- Madigan v. Dollar Building & Loan Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1933
- Rothman v. I. Seldin KnellerOhio Court of Appeals · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Morris v. Investment Life Ins. Co. of AmericaOhio Court of Appeals · 1965
- Industrial Credit Co. v. Ken Ray Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1955