
    (Third Circuit — Hancock Co., Circuit Court
    December Term, 1897.)
    Before Day, Price and Norris, JJ.
    WATSON A. FRANCE et al v. THE PEERLESS REFINING CO. et al.
    
      Where a receiver is appointed in c proper case by a court of competent jurisdiction of one county, it is error for such court, on mere motion, to discharge such receiver and order him to turn over the property to an assignee subsequently appointed by a court of another county, before hearing the case on its merits—
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock county.
    On a petition filed for that purpose, a receiver was duly appointed for the Peerless Refining Company, a corporation having its principal place of business at Findlay, Ohio, by a judge of the court of common pleas of Hancock county, at Chambers, on August 13, 1897. Such receiver at once qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties, was put in possession and control of the property and assets of the company, and was proceeding to administer his trust; when, on the 5th day of November, 1897, on motion of the defendant company to discharge such receiver, the court of common pleas, in advance of a trial -of said cause on its merits, sustained the motion and ordered the discharge of such receiver, and that he turn over, all the property and assets of such company in his possession, as such receiver, to an assignee appointed by the probate court of Cuyahoga county, subsequent to the appointment and possession of such receiver.
   Bv the Court:

Regarding the petition as an application for the appointment of a receiver, the facts stated therein, showing insolvency of the corporation, frauds and mismanagement of its board of directors and managers, to the detriment, present and prospective, of the corporation,its stockholders and creditors, justified the appointment of the receiver for the purposes specified in the order of appointment; and the receiver having qualified and entered upon the trust by being put in possession of the property and assets, and proceeded in execution of the order of appointment, the matter was within the grasp of the law for all proper purposes appearing upon a trial of the case on its merits; and, under the averments of the petition, and the facts appearing, it was error, for the court, on .a preliminary motion, in advance of such trial and disposition of the case on its merits, to discharge the receiver and relinquish the possession of the property and assets received by him, to an assignee subsequently appointed in another jurisdiction.

Thomas Meehan and Elijah T. Dunn, for Plaintiff in' Error.

Ross & Kinder, and Judge Blandin, for Defendants.

The order of discharge is reversed, with costs.  