This appeal arises from a dispute in connection with the purchase of a franchise restaurant. Appellees are two brothers, Kishan and Rashmikant Patel, and their sister Jayshreeben Patel. The brothers obtained a loan for $695,000, but about $146,000 in cash was also necessary to close the transaction. A portion of the cash was contributed by Nilesh Patel, who was Ms. Patel’s husband at the time, and a large portion was given by his brother, Ashvin Patel, who is the Appellant. The purchase was consummated in March 2002 by a business entity formed for that purpose, SAYA, LLC, of which K. Patel owned 65 and R. Patel owned 35. Company records did not reflect the interest of Ms. Patel or N. Patel due to their immigration status. After Appellant unsuccessfully sought to purchase the entire interest in the restaurant, K. Patel signed a document which purports to transfer his interest to Appellant, but which Appellees contend is void. Ms. Patel and N. Patel operated the franchise until their separation in January 2004. Since that time, Appellees have prevented N. Patel from participation in the business, and Ms. Patel has managed the restaurant. Appellant brought suit based on fraud, and conversion, and seeking an injunction, an accounting and other relief. He alleges that he has an equitable ownership interest in the restaurant, and that Appellees have unlawfully taken control of the business and deprived him of his rights. Appellant filed a motion for the appointment of a custodian or receiver to manage the assets of the restaurant during the pendency of litigation. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Appellant failed to make the requisite showing that such appointment is appropriate. Appellant appeals directly from that order pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 a 4. When any fund or property is in litigation and the rights of either or both parties cannot otherwise be fully protected or when there is a fund or property having no one to manage it, a receiver of the same may be appointed by the judge of the superior court having jurisdiction thereof. OCGA § 9-8-1. As this court has frequently held, the grant or refusal of a receivership under OCGA § § 9-8-1 et seq. “is a matter addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, the exercise of which will not be interfered with unless such discretion be manifestly abused.” Friedlander v. Friedlander Bros. , 175 Ga. 477 4 165 SE 426 1932. Indeed, Appellant has conceded that this Court has never reversed a trial court for the failure to appoint a receiver pursuant to OCGA § 9-8-1 et seq. Regardless of exactly how accurate this concession is, it is at least as true now as it was a century ago that “there are few, if any, cases, under the equity practice of this State, in which receivers are appointed as a matter of right . . . .” Huggins v. Huggins , 117 Ga. 151, 160 6 43 SE 759 1903.
“The power of appointing receivers should be prudently and cautiously exercised and except in clear and urgent cases should not be resorted to.” OCGA § 9-8-4. See also Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA , 275 Ga. 505, 507 3 570 SE2d 307 2002. “This is so regardless of the apparent equity of the complainant. Cit.” Chrysler Ins. Co. v. Dorminey , 271 Ga. 555, 556 1 522 SE2d 232 1999. ” ‘The high prerogative act of taking property out of the owner’s hands and putting it in pound, under the order of a judge, ought not to be taken, except to prevent manifest wrong imminently impending. Cit.’ Cit.” Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA , supra.
