DIXIE TIRE COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
G. E. MOSELEY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari to review an order appointing a receiver, finding no abuse of discretion by the chancellor. The court noted that the case was nearing submission on its merits.
No, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in appointing a receiver.
“Such an appointment is within' the discretion of the court and we are not convinced that there was abuse of it in this case.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appointment of a receiver and the court's conclusion on the facts presented.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe chancellor entered an order appointing a receiver for Dixie Tire Company, Franklin Warehouse Corporation, and Flamingo Oil Company. The principal …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This case reaches us upon petition for *123certiorari to review an order entered by the chancellor October 17, 1940, appointing a receiver for the defendants, Dixie Tire Company, Franklin Warehouse Corporation and Flamingo Oil Company.
Such an appointment is within' the discretion of the court and we are not convinced that there was abuse of it in this case.
The answers of the principal defendants have been filed and testimony filling approximately seven hundred pages has been taken.
In this situation it seems that the .whole case may be submitted on its merits with little delay.
It is the order, therefore, that the petition be denied without prejudice to the right of the defendants or any of them to present against the questions contained in their briefs.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.