Court may modify orders of appointment.

- Since the receiver is an officer of the court, the receiver is under the control of the judge, and if the order appointing the receiver operates harshly or disastrously, the judge may modify it upon proper application. Graham v. Fuller Elec. Co., 75 Ga. 878 (1885).

Receiver is officer of court and the property held is in custodia legis and the court has power to control it. Field v. Jones, 11 Ga. 413 (1852); Zorn v. Wheatley & Co., 61 Ga. 437 (1878); Tindall v. Westcott, 113 Ga. 1114, 39 S.E. 450 (1901); Shaw v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 87, 189 S.E.2d 684 (1972).

A receiver is an officer of the court and is not an agent or subject to the control of anyone else; hence, the actions of the receiver in the receiver's operation of the property could not be imputed to anyone else. Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Newton, 157 Ga. App. 436, 278 S.E.2d 85 (1981).

It is duty of court to protect property held by its receiver and this may be done by injunction. Marshall v. Lockett, 76 Ga. 289 (1886).

Failure to obtain leave to file suit against receivers.

- Dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the receivers was upheld because the plaintiff failed to obtain leave from the trial court in the lawsuit against a former business partner before filing a separate lawsuit against the receivers appointed in that case. Considine v. Murphy, 297 Ga. 164, 773 S.E.2d 176 (2015).

Duty to protect assets includes power to compel delivery of the property to the receiver. Cobb v. Black, 34 Ga. 162 (1865).

Court may, in its discretion, direct receiver to bring suit to protect the property. Hardwock v. Hook, 8 Ga. 354 (1850); Sterling Elec. Co. v. Augusta Tel. & Elec. Co., 124 Ga. 371, 52 S.E. 541 (1905).

Receiver cannot be sued without permission of court appointing the receiver. Hollifield v. Wrightsville &. T.R.R., 99 Ga. 365, 27 S.E. 715 (1896).

Suits against court-appointed receivers.

- If a trial court appoints a receiver under O.C.G.A. § 14-2-1431(c), not under O.C.G.A. § 9-8-8, nothing precludes an intervening party from suing the receiver, particularly when the harm at issue cannot be resolved by the receiver's removal. Vautrot v. West, 272 Ga. App. 715, 613 S.E.2d 19 (2005).

Receiver has no authority to dispose of property in the receiver's hands, in absence of order or decree authorizing the disposal from the court under which the receiver holds appointment. Gray v. Bradford, 194 Ga. 492, 22 S.E.2d 43 (1942).

Court will not authorize receiver to sell assets in the receiver's custody without receiving value therefor. The court has no authority to do so. Northeast Factor & Disct. Co. v. Mortgage Invs., Inc., 107 Ga. App. 705, 131 S.E.2d 221 (1963).

Receiver and court presumed to act properly in sale of assets.

- It is presumed that both the receiver and the judge of the court, in the making and confirmation of the sale, have faithfully discharged their duty. Northeast Factor & Disct. Co. v. Mortgage Invs., Inc., 107 Ga. App. 705, 131 S.E.2d 221 (1963).

Expansion of receiver's powers to effectuate court ordered duties.

- Trial court properly entered an order expanding the powers of a receiver who was appointed to oversee the operation of a limited liability company (LLC) during the pendency of a judicial dissolution of the LLC where the order was based on an affidavit the receiver submitted that indicated the receiver was unable to fulfill the receiver's duties due to the actions of one of the 50% owners of the LLC. Ga. Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Newnan Hosp., 284 Ga. 68, 663 S.E.2d 204 (2008).

Court, by continuing receivership, had jurisdiction to make final disposition of property according to the respective interests of the parties, and to this end could order a division by sale, if necessary. Roberts v. Federal Land Bank, 180 Ga. 832, 181 S.E. 180 (1935).

Receiver cannot place property in the receiver's possession beyond jurisdiction of court, with no authority for doing so, and thereby free the receiver from accounting to the court appointing the receiver for the funds entrusted to the receiver, at least to the extent of claims outstanding against the fund. Broyles v. Baumstark, 87 Ga. App. 155, 73 S.E.2d 257 (1952).

Receiver under duty to report business or property loss to court.

- If it should become apparent that, under the receivership, the business is operating at a loss, it would be the duty of the receiver, or of any interested party, to report that fact promptly to the court and seek further instructions and directions in the matter. Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v. Pesterfield, 216 Ga. 381, 116 S.E.2d 556 (1960).

Notice in proceedings for removal of receiver.

- It is only in cases where the receiver's conduct is called in question and where it is sought to make the receiver liable, or where the receiver is called upon to account or to make return, that the receiver is entitled to notice or to a hearing in proceedings to revoke the order of appointment. Howard v. Lowell Mach. Co., 75 Ga. 325 (1885).

Cited in McCord v. McPherson, 40 Ga. App. 614, 151 S.E. 53 (1929); Evans v. White, 178 Ga. 262, 172 S.E. 913 (1934); Meinert Coal Co. v. Smith, 180 Ga. 550, 179 S.E. 707 (1935).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 66 Am. Jur. 2d, Receivers, §§ 130, 139.

C.J.S.

- 75 C.J.S., Receivers, §§ 93 et seq., 142 et seq., 170.

ALR.

- Duty of receiver to apply to court before making outlays for improvement, repairs, or upkeep of property, 79 A.L.R. 164.