BRITT, Judge.
Appellants contend that the court erred (1) in appointing a receiver and (2) in providing for the receiver "to take legal title" to the 89 acres of land. We will discuss the second contention first.
While appellants filed objections and exceptions to the 23 January 1975 order appointing a temporary receiver, their appeal is from the order entered on 20 February 1975 which completely superseded the former order. It will be noted that the latter...
Let's get started
![Leagle.com](https://www.leagle.com/images/logo.png)
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.