Grant v. Webb

• Decision Date: 05 September 1874
• Parties: William H. Grant & another v. Edward Webb & others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

21 Minn. 39

William H. Grant & another v. Edward Webb & others

Supreme Court of Minnesota

September 5, 1874

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing to appoint a receiver.

The order appealed from affirmed.

James N. Castle, for appellants.

E. C Palmer, for respondents.

OPINION

Berry J.

This case was referred below to the Hon. James Gilfillan, who was directed to try the same and report a judgment therein. Among other things, he reported "that a receiver be appointed of all the rights of said Webb and of the defendants administrators of the estate of said Comstock, to recover any moneys that may be due under said exhibit A (a certain contract), from * * T. & J. Sutton and Torinus, Staples & Co., or from said Munch, with authority to collect the same, by suit or otherwise, and also of" * * certain "1,900,000 feet of logs, with authority to take possession of the same, and sell so many thereof as may be necessary to raise, in addition to costs and expenses of taking, keeping, and selling the same, and such reasonable compensation for his services as the court may allow, the sum of $ 4,275, being three-fourths of three dollars per thousand feet upon the whole of said 1,900,000 feet, together with interest from June 15, 1873, on said sum of $ 4,275, to the day of such sale; such receiver to bring into court all moneys made by him, to be paid upon the debts specified in said exhibit B (a certain contract,) as the court may from time to time direct."

Upon plaintiffs' application, the district court issued an order upon defendants to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed in accordance with the report of the referee, at the same time enjoining defendant Webb from disposing of the 1,900,000 feet of logs before mentioned, which were in Webb's possession, or of the proceeds or avails thereof until the appointment of such receiver. Upon the hearing upon the order to show cause, affidavits were read on behalf of defendants, tending to show that a sale of the logs above mentioned by a receiver would be injudicious, attended with great expense, and prejudicial to the best interest of the parties concerned. In view of these facts, and upon offer made at the hearing by defendant Webb, the court, instead of appointing a receiver to take possession of the logs, and make sale of enough thereof to raise the sum of $ 4,275,...