Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/234

 Wait on Trial of Titles to Land, 8§ 631, 632; High on Receivers, §§ 553, 557 and cases cited.

Carmody & Leslie, for respondents:

A receiver may be appointed ex parte. Williams v. Jenkins, 11 Ga. 595; Maple v. Scot, 4 Ill. App. 268; Gregory v. Gregory, 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1; Association v. San Francisco, 60 Cal. 223.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wallin, J. On June 29, 1891, after issue was joined in this action by service of an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, but before trial, the district court, on plaintiffs application and by an order made herein, wholly ex parte, appointed a receiver of certain growing crops which were sown by defendant upon the lands in question, upon which the defendant then resided and long had resided. Upon due notice defendant moved in the district court to vacate the order appointing a receiver. The court denied the motion to vacate such order, and in the order denying the motion the district court enlarged the powers of the receiver by making him receiver of the land in controversy, as well as the crops thereon. The case comes to this court on appeal from each and all of said orders.

The action is brought in equity, to quiet title to land. The specific relief prayed for by plaintiffs as follows: “ For judgment decreeing that these plaintiffs are the equitable owners of the land; that defendant has no right, title, or interest therein; that the defendant be restrained, during the pendency of the action, and permanently restrained from tilling said land, or in any mauner interfering with the same. Plaintiffs also pray generally for other and further relief.” The complaint further states, in substance, that the land—the S. W. 1/2 of section 7, township 146, range 50 west—is in Traill county, and situated within fifty miles of the line of the Northern Pacific Railroad as such road is finally located and built and situated, within the ten-mile limit of said railroad, commonly called the “indemnity belt.” That said tract is “among the lands, from which the said company were given the right to select lands in lieu of lands which