Hazelrigg v. Bronaugh
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 10—PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT. The petition and amended petition state that the fund in contest is the property of appellant, Knowles, and that the attempt of the appellee to control it is unwarranted.
Read the full summary
Case 10—PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT. The petition and amended petition state that the fund in contest is the property of appellant, Knowles, and that the attempt of the appellee to control it is unwarranted. This, upon demurrer, must be taken as true. 1. The judgment in controversy was obtained by a receiver of the Court with the object of bringing the money into Court. 2. There is no averment that the receiver is insolvent. _3. An injunction in this case cannot properly be obtained. (Section 272, Civil Code.J
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE COFER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the Court below, alleged in substance, that in an action in the Morgan Circuit Court, of Ball & Brough v. Harrison Knowles, an attachment was sued out and levied upon a steam mill as the property of Harrison Knowles; that the mill was rented under ■an order of the Court; that G. H. Knowles became the renter and gave bond for the rent, -with the appellants, •except P. B. Turner, as sureties; that afterward the appellee Mynheer was appointed receiver in the action, and ordered to collect the rent; that he…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky · 1894
- Jennings v. Fidelity Columbia Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Kortjohn v. SeimersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Campau v. Detroit Driving ClubMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Knott v. Evening Post Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Kentucky · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.