Morris v. Linton
Morris v. Linton
Opinion of the Court
This suit was to foreclose a real estate mortgage. The petition for foreclosure alleges that the mortgaged premises are of insufficient value to pay the amount of the mortgage. Shortly after the filing of this petition the plaintiff made application for the appointment of á receiver to collect the rents, alleging that the property was insufficient to pay the mortgage. This application was heard by one of the judges of the district court of Douglas county, who appointed a receiver. The defendant has appealed from this order, claiming that the judge had no jurisdiction at chambers to appoint a receiver. This contention is untenable. Section 23, article 6, of the constitution declares that “the several judges of the courts of record shall have such jurisdiction at chambers as may be provided by law.” Section 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “A receiver may be appointed by the supreme court, or the district court, or by the judge of either, in the following cases: * * * Second — In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, when the mortgaged property is in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured, or is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt,” etc. Section 57, chapter 19, Compiled Statutes, reads: “That any judge of the district
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.