Euphrat v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 24 July 1905
• Citation: 81 P. 695,39 Wash. 311
• Parties: EUPHRAT v. MORRISON et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

81 P. 695

39 Wash. 311

EUPHRAT v. MORRISON et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 24, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; W. R. Bell, Judge.

Action to foreclose a chattel mortgage by Gussie Euphrat against Edith Morrison and others. From an order appointing a receiver pendente lite, defendant Edith Morrison appeals. Affirmed.

Byers &amp Byers, for appellant.

Harrison Bostwick, for respondent.

RUDKIN J.

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver pendente lite in an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage. On the 4th day of March, 1904, the appellant mortgaged to the respondent all the furniture and household effects contained on the third and fourth floors of the Hotel Western, and also the leasehold interest in the premises occupied by the mortgagor, to secure the payment of $1,230, in monthly installments of $100 each, payable on the 4th day of each and every month, commencing April 4, 1904, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. The mortgage contained a provision that the whole sum should become due and payable on default in the payment of any installment, and the installments due on the 4th day of April, May, June, July and August were due and unpaid at the time of the commencement of this action. There was a prior mortgage on the same property in favor of one George O'Reilley, to secure the rental on the third and fourth floors of said Hotel Western at the rate of $250 per month, and the rent for the months of June, July, and August, amounting to $750, was due and unpaid at the time of the commencement of this action. The respondent, before commencing this action attempted to foreclose her mortgage by notice without action under the statute, but the proceedings were removed into the superior court. It further appears that O'Reilley has commenced proceedings to recover possession of the third and fourth floors of the Hotel Western, the leasehold interest in which was covered by the mortgage. The complaint further avers that the appellant is intentionally and purposely avoiding the payment of the respondent's mortgage and of the rent accumulating on the said rooms, and is converting the money which he receives in the conduct and operation of said rooms to her own use, thereby cheating and defrauding respondent out of the money due upon said notes and mortgage. In opposition to the appointment of a receiver the appellant cites and relies on Norfor v. Busby, 19 Wash. 450, 53 P. 715, and Balfour-Guthrie Investment Co. v. Geiger, 20 Wash. 579, 56 P. 370....