ARISON SHIPPING COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

KLOSTERS REDERI A/S, D/B/A NORWEGIAN CARIBBEAN LINES, APPELLEE

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-Arison Shipping Company (“Arison”) prosecuted an expedited interlocutory appeal to review an order of the circuit court appointing, after an ex parte hearing without notice, a receiver for certain funds and records. The order was entered on February 2, 1972, pursuant to a motion and a prayer for such relief in the complaint filed by appellee-Klosters Rederi A/S (“Klosters”).

Klosters filed a sworn complaint invoking equity jurisdiction and alleged that the appellant Arison was to keep the books and passenger arrangements under a joint venture agreement between the parties. The complaint further alleged that Arison converted funds belonging to Klosters and the supporting records of their joint venture, to the immediate detriment of Klosters. The joint venture agreement, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, provided that while appellee Klosters, the owner of the ships, was to operate them, the appellant Arison was to be in charge of advertising, passenger arrangements, and maintenance of the records of the joint venture. The sworn complaint was the original sworn complaint which had been filed by the ap-pellee Klosters as the plaintiff in a civil action brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 72-170-Civ-JLK.

The order appealed reads, in pertinent part:

“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard upon the sworn Complaint of the Plaintiff for the appointment of a Receiver without notice and upon the Affidavits of BERNARD R. CHABOT, former President of GEORGIAN BAY LINES, INC., a subsidiary of the Defendant ARISON SHIPPING COMPANY, and the Affidavit of MILTON HATFIELD, a certified public accountant and a member of the firm of Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery. From the foregoing and evidence taken before the Court, the Court finds that the facts and circumstances warrant extraordinary relief by way of a Receiver, and that irreparable damages will result to the Plaintiff if the extraordinary relief is not granted. The Court is further of the opinion that . the appointment of a Receiver without notice is necessary in order to preserve the status quo of the various funds, books and records, and that there is a strong probability that if notice were given to the Defendants of the application for the relief herein granted that irreparable damage would be done to the Plaintiff by the removal of matured and maturing accounts, and the destruction of books and records belonging to the Plaintiff, which books'and records are necessary and essential to the performance of outstanding contracts with third parties whose monies while belonging to the Plaintiff are currently on deposit with the banks hereinafter named and under the direction and control of ARISON SHIPPING COMPANY. * * * ”

*786According to the briefs and the complaint, Klosters purported to withdraw, under paragraph 12.2 of the written joint venture agreement, its ships and terminate the agreement upon thirty days’ written notice by a letter of December 31, 1971, because of adverse economic conditions. Arison points to paragraph 16, a broad arbitration provision, and its written demand for arbitration dated January 3, 1972.1

*787Sometime thereafter Klosters originally brought suit by a sworn complaint filed in the federal district court in Miami, Florida. Shortly thereafter motions concerning federal jurisdiction were made, and a hearing was held in which testimony was adduced. It appears that the federal district judge dismissed the suit for want of diversity of citizenship.

On the same day that the complaint was dismissed in the federal court, Klosters initiated suit in the Dade County circuit court. Arison has argued, although it does not appear of record, that several hours earlier that same day it had filed suit in the Dade County circuit court seeking arbitration under the arbitration provisions of the contract.

We have paraphrased the contentions of appellant Arison as follows: (1) Arison has complied with the arbitration clause of the contract and under those provisions court proceedings are stayed; (2) the order appointing a receiver does not preserve the status quo, which is defined in the contract, but modifies it; (3) Klosters is a Norwegian corporation, with its principal place of business in Florida, and therefore, under § 613.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., cannot maintain this action; (4) under the circumstances here, the appointment of the receiver without notice, without requiring a bond and surety, and without specifying the conditions of the bond was reversible error.

The appellee-Klosters has argued to the contrary by contentions which we have summarized: (1) arbitration is not properly before us; (2) appointment of a receiver was proper because within a month Ari-son misappropriated roughly one million dollars; (3) Klosters is qualified to do business; (4) receivership was not of the Arison Shipping Company but of Klosters’ books in Arison’s hands, so that the ex parte appointment without notice was proper, especially where the remaining defects in the appointment were not challenged below, precluding review of those matters here.

We express the view that the sole issue presented by this appeal was whether the trial court erred in appointing a receiver for certain funds and records after an ex parte hearing without notice. We have for review only the order of the circuit court, and the record consists only of that order, the receiver’s bond, the complaint with attachments, the motion for appointment of the receiver, and appeal papers.

In cases involving the appointment of a receiver, the findings of a court of equity come to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the decision to appoint a receiver will be overturned only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Bird Road Commercial Sites, Inc. v. Feldstein, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 658, 660. In the case sub judice, *788appellants have failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in appointing a receiver for certain funds and records based upon an ex parte hearing without notice. Karafilakis v. Stavroulakis, 112 Fla. 303, 150 So. 277 (1933); Dixie Music Co., Inc. v. Pike, 135 Fla. 671, 185 So. 441, 446-447 (1938). See also: Decumbe v. Smith, 143 Fla. 5, 196 So. 595, 596 (1940); Lieberbaum v. Levine, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 159, 161.

Therefore, for the reasons stated and based upon the authorities cited, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CHARLES CARROLL,

Judge (concurring specially).

I concur, on the merits of the appointment of the receiver, and, with some reservations, in the lack of notice.

The complaint which first was submitted to the federal court for appointment of the receiver without notice contained allegations of need for dispensing with notice which were sufficient in form to comply with the requirements therefor in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 1.620(a) applying to appointment of receivers the provisions for notice as to injunctions set out in Rule 1.610(b)). It was brought out that at the hearing held in the federal court, before noon on a certain day, which resulted in dismissal of the complaint there for want of jurisdiction, both sides were represented by counsel and that when the ruling of dismissal was made, counsel for plaintiff announced intention to refile the complaint and apply for relief in the state court, and that leave of the federal court was granted to withdraw the original complaint for that purpose. The complaint was refiled, in the circuit court that afternoon, with a cover page of explanation, and the plaintiff applied for and obtained the appointment of the receiver, without notice to defendants or their counsel. No new allegations of need for dispensing with notice were made. To so proceed for appointment of the receiver in the state court without giving notice to the opposing side, in those circumstances, bordered on sharp practice.

However, from the standpoint of the state circuit court to which the application thus was made, it should be recognized that the complaint which was presented contained allegations for dispensing with notice which on their face appeared sufficient under the cited rules. Therefore, it should be assumed, in absence of a showing on the record to the contrary, that the circuit court, upon making inquiry relating to the basis for such allegations, found sufficient cause for dispensing with notice in ordering the appointment of the receiver. For that reason I concur also in the affirmance of that feature of the order.

BARKDULL, C. J., agrees.