JOHN SCHNORR, P. M. SCHNORR, W. B. JONES, TRUSTEE, W. B. JONES AND SADIE JONES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
M. K. WRIGHT AND P. L. ADIX, APPELLEES
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 reversed an order appointing a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure suit, finding no grounds to justify the appointment.
No, the appointment of a receiver was not warranted because there was no showing of waste, depletion of security, or any other condition that would justify such an appointment.
“The Amended Bill of Complaint was filed on September 2nd, 1930, praying for foreclosure and for the appointment of a Receiver.”
Describes the initial filing and request in the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgage foreclosure suit was filed, and the complainants applied for the appointment of a receiver. The property in question was leased for the tru…
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 Waste cases and more on FLexlaw
— This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage on a tract of land, a part of which was being cultivated as a truck farm.
The Amended Bill of Complaint was filed on September 2nd, 1930, praying for foreclosure and for the appointment of a Receiver.
The cause coming on to be heard upon application for appointment of a Receiver, a Receiver was appointed. From the order appointing the Receiver appeal was taken.
The lands had theretofore been leased and rented for the trucking season of 1930-1931, which as we understand it, means the Fall, Winter and Spring vegetable growing sea*837son in South Florida. The rental had. been paid in advance in full and the tenant was in possession.
No waste was being experienced. No part of the security was being depleted. No rents were due or payable, nor was there any cause to hold that any would thereafter become due or payable during the period of the progress of this suit. The complainants had no right of possession before sale under final decree.
There was no showing made that could be construed to warrant the appointment of a Receiver, nor was there any service which a Receiver could properly perform.
It, therefore, follows that the order appointing a Receiver should be reversed. It is So ordered.
Reversed.
Buford, C.J., and ‘Whitfield, Brown and Davis, J.J.', concur.
Ellis and Terrell, J.J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Tr. & Sav. Bank v. William J. Cozens Realty Co., 113 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1933)…iven in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed. See Schnorr v. Wright, 136 So. 510. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.…