Judges: Snow
Filed Date: 4/7/1931
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/11/2024
The ground of the claimant's exception, as disclosed in his formal statement thereof made a part of the record, is that the findings, on which the court's refusal to reopen the commission in his behalf were based, were made ex parte, were supported by no evidence *Page 117 and are contrary to the fact. The exception is in substance, to the refusal of the court to grant the claimant a hearing on his motion.
The appointment of a receiver does not determine the property rights of the persons interested in the subject-matter of the receivership. Its purpose is to secure and conserve the property for their benefit. Eastman v. Bank,
As it appears that no hearing has been had upon the issue presented by the motion to reopen the commission, and that the denim thereof, as respects Staples' claim, was based upon purported "facts" which otherwise came to the attention of the court, the order denying the motion is set aside, and the case is returned for hearing on the motion.
Order set aside.
All concurred. *Page 118