We claim the action was pending, according to usages of courts of equity, from the time of filing a complaint, and under the statute from the allowance of the provisional remedy, Code of C. P. Sec. 108, a receiver may be appointed in an extreme case without service of summons or notice of application. Gibson v. Martin, 8 Paige, 481; Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 2 Paige, 438; High on Receivers, Sec. 117.
A court can acquire a limited jurisdiction in an action by the allowance of a provisional remedy. Waldron v. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., 1 Dak. 363; Code C. P., Sec. 108; Matter of Fort Plain V. Plank Road Co., 3 Code R, 148; Moore v. Thayer, 6 How. (S. C.) 47, 10 Barb. 258.
Jurisdiction is acquired from the time pf the allowance of the provisional remedy. Treadwell v. Lawlor, 15 How. 8; Burkhardt v. Sandford, 7 How. 829; 13 Barb. 412; 37 How. 119; 36 How. 540; Sec. 219 Code C. C. P., Par. 6.
Receivers may be appointed in cases where they have heretofore been appointed by the usages of courts of equity.
W. E. Church, J. On the ninth day of April, 1886, one of the attorneys for the relators appeared before the chief justice with an affidavit made by the relator Robert H. Gray, April 6, 1886, stating substantially that the relators were partners doing business under the name of the "Mouse River Cattle Company;" that on or about March 20th said William H. Francis, as such judge, made an order appointing one Jesse A. Prye a receiver of all the property, assets, and effects of said copartnership." a copy of which order was annexed to the affidavit; that, as affiant was informed and believed, said order was made '*upon the presentation of a complaint and affidavits purporting to have been commenced and to be then pending in said district court, wherein one Casseus M. Carr, James R. Winslow, and Samuel L. Glaspell were named as plaintiffs, and the relators and one Edwin A. Rowley and one Albert Hermance were named as defendants, copies of which complaint and affidavits were also annexed to the relator's affidavit; that at the time of making such order no summons had been served upon the persons named as defendants in said complaint, nor
