From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sweins v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Aug 28, 1936
16 Cal.App.2d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)

Opinion

Docket No. 10307.

August 28, 1936.

PROCEEDING in Prohibition to prevent a receiver appointed by the Superior Court of Monterey County from acting. Writ granted.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Thacher, Jones Casey for Petitioner.

H.W. Hutton for Respondents.


THE COURT.

An alternative writ of prohibition was issued upon the petitioner's application showing that, in an action foreclosing a chattel mortgage, the respondents made an ex parte order appointing a receiver without requiring the applicants for such order to give an undertaking.

Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that: "If a receiver is appointed upon an ex parte application, the court, before making the order, must require from the applicant an undertaking . . ."

[1] The provisions of that section are mandatory (22 Cal. Jur., p. 468) and the order was therefore void. ( Westphal v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.App. 263, 264 [ 7 P.2d 711], where other authorities to the same effect are cited.)

Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed.


Summaries of

Sweins v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Aug 28, 1936
16 Cal.App.2d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
Case details for

Sweins v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:MATTS WERNER SWEINS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Aug 28, 1936

Citations

16 Cal.App.2d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
60 P.2d 313

Citing Cases

Panama Timber Co. v. Barsanti

The fact that a surety bond in the sum of $50,000 was executed following the June 6 hearing did not operate…

In re Sandhu

An ex parte appointment of a receiver without the required applicant's bond is void. (Sweins v. Superior …