(c) for the purpose of executing judgments, in known cases."
- Later, says Justice Dunkelblum, on the basis of the well-known book (Kerr, on Receivers), that the purpose of appointing an asset receiver, "It is to protect property for the benefit of the people who have a right to that property" (פרשת Thorg, Name, at p. 419, opposite letter A). The judge notes that "There are two types of cases in which the appointment was made.", and he lists them, as follows, and emphasizes the following (Name, Name, between the letters A-C):
“)a) to enable persons who have a right in respect of known property to receive the enjoyment of that right, and to preserve the property until it is sold;
(b) To guard the property in the event that it is in danger.
Among the cases of the first type, we recall: the execution of judgments, the appointment of a receiver of assets at the request of a mortgage holder. Among the cases of the second type, we mention: disputes between heirs, protection of property belonging to insane people, disputes between partners, etc.
In all of the aforementioned cases (except in the case of the execution of judgments by way of the appointment of a receiver of assets), a plaintiff demands the appointment of some special right in the body of the property, such as the right of the owner, the right of a mortgage holder, a partner or a manager, but we are not aware of any cases of the appointment of a receiver of assets under conditions similar to the reasons in this trial, and no precedent has been brought before us on which the respondents can rely."
- On the basis of these tests, the Supreme Court reaches the conclusion that there is no justification for appointing a receiver (at the time the terminology was "receiver"), based on the data of the evidence and the rights that were claimed and proven in that case.
- I have cited this judgment, since it is continued to be cited, as a source of precedent, according to which the authority to issue a temporary receivership order is limited to those three cases, which were cited in the same judgment (quoted above, at paragraph 65). Indeed, this rule was cited and applied in the district courts, and was also mentioned in Sussman's book, in the various editions, including the last edition from 1995 (p. 621, onwards).
- Only at a later stage, decades later, did the Supreme Court say that there was room to expand the halakha, according to the current economic situation. The reference quoted in this regard is the judgment of Judge Dr. Moshe Etzioni (according to him, the judge - as he was then called - Moshe Landau and Justice Zvi Berenson agreed). Other Municipality Requests 689/74 Bosmat, Investment and Finance Company in Tax Appeal v. Eilat Municipality, IsrSC 29(2) 281, at p. 293, between the letters C and Z (hereinafter - "Parashat Bosmat"):
"IF WE SUM UP, I AM PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT THE COMMERCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THIS CENTURY GIVE A BASIS FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY THE SAME PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FORMULATED AS TO THE CONDITIONS THAT APPLIED BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THE JUDICATURE ACT, 1873 AND EVEN AFTERWARDS. Reasonable space should be left to the judge's discretion, taking into account the development of the legal forms of commercial and economic business, their enormous scope and the multitude of forms of circumvention of the law in economic offenses, and therefore I am also prepared to assume that there are cases in which the appointment of a receiver would be more beneficial and justified, even though it is prima facie possible to carry out a temporary foreclosure in accordance with Regulation 238. Thus, for example, a foreclosure on shares is not always beneficial, because the shareholders, despite the foreclosure imposed on them, can still use their entire voting rights in the company's management, and by making appropriate decisions, they can 'empty' the company of its assets and harm the value of the shares, thereby endangering the purpose of the foreclosure. The most effective way to deal with such cases, out of a consideration of 'just and convenient' and in order to ensure the rights of the creditor, is to appoint a receiver on shares, who will step into the shoes of the shareholder and in his role as receiver, as a clerk of the court subject to his instructions, and will ensure that the status quo is maintained until a judgment is rendered.