CHAPMAN, Justice.
The plaintiff-petitioner, R.L. House, filed in this court his petition for a writ of interlocutory certiorari under Supreme Court Rule No. 34, 30 F.S.A., by the terms of which he prayed for the entry of an order staying or superseding the terms and provisions of a certain order entered by Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, under date of August 14, 1947. This court, after a careful consideration thereof and being advised in the premises, therefore concludes that the prayer of the said petition as to the aforesaid order should be and is hereby denied.
It is further made to appear by the allegations of the petition that the respondent was in possession of the property involved in the litigation and was operating the same at a large profit of approximately $1,000 per month and thus far had refused or declined to make an accounting to the petitioner, or in any manner protect the petitioner for the rents, issues and profits which petitioner asserts that he has been entitled to, as a matter of law, since April, 1951, and a receiver should be appointed by the court with directions to take over the property, conserve the same, and operate it under the directions of the Chancellor. Respondent in his pleadings denied that the business was having a profit of $1,000 per month. The petitioner renewed his request in this court for the appointment of a receiver for the property and business involved in this litigation.
It appears by the record that the petitioner applied to the court below for the appointment of a receiver and the request was denied and on petition for certiorari to this court the denial order of the lower court was affirmed. A second application for the appointment of a receiver was made in the lower court and the same was denied for the second time under date of August 14, 1951.
Petitioner contends here that a writ of certiorari should issue and the aforesaid order should be quashed with directions to the lower court for the appointment of a receiver to be made as prayed for. As we study the record, it has not been made to appear that the respondent is now insolvent or is unlawfully disposing of the property, or that he will not be financially able to respond to the payment of all money, decrees or judgments that may be finally entered and sustained against him. In the absence of such allegations, it cannot be said that the Chancellor erred in refusing the appointment of a receiver.
The petition is denied.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Comments