Lehman v. McQuown

• Citation: 31 F. 138
• Parties: LEHMAN v. McQUOWN and others.
• Decision Date: 12 May 1887
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

31 F. 138

LEHMAN v. McQUOWN and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

May 12, 1887

S. P Rose, for plaintiff.

J. W Horner, for defendants.

BREWER J., (orally.)

In 1,710, (Lehman v. McQuown,) in which an assessment of damages on an injunction bond is sought, the facts are these: In the fall of 1884, one George McQuown was indebted to sundry creditors. Proceedings were had, by assignment and suit which culminated in a sheriff's sale, in which Mrs McQuown, the wife of George McQuown, purchased the property. By mistake or accident, the principal creditor was not represented at the sale, and Mrs. McQuown bought the property at much less than its real value. The creditor, fancying that the transaction was not honest, after judgment, obtained the appointment of a receiver, and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. Then, upon a hearing of the matter before me, I was constrained to hold that, notwithstanding all the circumstances which the creditor showed of suspicion, Mrs. McQuown was a bona fide purchaser at a sheriff's sale, and if she made a good bargain it was her good luck, and not a fraud upon the creditor. I therefore ordered a decree in her favor, and the property was turned back to her, having been in the possession of the receiver four months, less six days. The property which passed to his hands was a stock of wall paper of about $6,800 in value. The accounts of the receiver were settled, and he was discharged. Upon an application for the taxation of costs, I charged the whole fees of the receiver upon the complainant. As the receivership was not justified, and as the receiver took the place of the owner, and conducted the business during that time, it seemed to me no more than fair that that which was paid to him for his personal services was an expense which was fairly to be borne by the complainant, who had wrongfully put him in possession. Now, in addition to that, damages are sought by reason of the dispossession of Mrs. McQuown, the owner, and a claim of several thousand dollars is presented. She claims a thousand dollars for the depreciation in value of the stock during the four months; another thousand for the injury to her credit; another thousand for the loss of custom,-- amounting, these different items and others, to several thousand dollars. Another thousand was claimed on the ground that the receiver sold portions of a single pattern, so as to leave broken and fragmentary pieces of comparatively little value.

I have here a mass of testimony. Some of the items of damage certainly, are not to be considered. If the receiver mismanaged; if he sold improperly from one pattern, leaving worthless...