Cassedy v. Strauch, 5499.

• Decision Date: 01 February 1932
• Docket Number: No. 5499.,5499.
• Parties: CASSEDY v. STRAUCH.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

61 App. DC 21, 56 F.2d 493 (1932)

CASSEDY v. STRAUCH.

No. 5499.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Argued January 5, 1932.

Decided February 1, 1932.

Frank K. Nebeker and Geo. C. Ober, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

B. B. Pettus and Geo. E. Sullivan, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This appeal challenges an interlocutory order issued by the lower court appointing receivers pendente lite in a foreclosure suit, and ordering the payment of certain money to the receivers by appellant. The order was made upon bill and answer.

It appears that appellant and his associates owned and were in possession of certain real estate situate in the District of Columbia, consisting of a leasehold estate in certain city lots improved by a twelve-story building, designed in part for storerooms and in part for living apartments; that the property was incumbered by a ground rent charge of $36,000 per annum payable in quarterly installments, and by a deed of trust or mortgage indebtedness represented by 870 promissory notes aggregating $650,000, payable with semiannual interest at 6 per cent. per annum; that appellee as plaintiff below was the owner of four of these notes in the aggregate amount of $8,000, and in behalf of himself and other like note holders he brought this suit in the lower court for a foreclosure of the mortgage, and for the appointment of receivers to take charge of the property and manage it pendente lite subject to the court's orders, alleging that there were unpaid taxes amounting to $5,533.54 upon the property, and that there was imminent danger of default in the payment of the ground rent aforesaid. It was also alleged in the bill that appellant was in possession of certain income received by him from the property, which, according to a prior arrangement, should in equity be applied to the payment of the taxes accrued thereon.

The court thereupon appointed receivers for the property pendente lite and ordered appellant to pay over to the receivers such part of the income from the property in his possession as would pay the accrued taxes. The receivers duly qualified, and appellant, under objection and exception, paid over to them the sum of $5,500 under the court's order.

This appeal was then brought upon the contention that the court erred both in appointing receivers and in requiring appellant to...