Ricks v. Broyles

• Decision Date: 05 July 1887
• Citation: 3 S.E. 772,78 Ga. 610
• Parties: RICKS v. BROYLES, Receiver.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

3 S.E. 772

78 Ga. 610

RICKS v. BROYLES, Receiver.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 5, 1887

Syllabus by the Court.

When money awaiting the result of litigation is in the possession of a receiver at the place of permanent custody, and he has no further duty in respect to it but that of preservation, it is already the court, and the receiver cannot part with his custody of it by depositing in bank or otherwise, save at his own risk, without some order, leave, or direction authorizing him so to do.

Morgan v. Hardee, 71 Ga. 736, and Phillips v. Lamar, 27 Ga. 228 adjudicate nothing to the contrary of the foregoing.

A court of equity in Georgia has no official banker, and no bank but its receiver.

A general deposit is a loan, and transforms the funds from ready money into a chose in action.

A court of errors must take judicial notice of human nature. The special facts vindicate the rule of responsibility founded on general principles.

Error from superior court, Fulton county; BOYNTON, Judge.

A. M. Speer, for plaintiff in error.

E. N Broyles, in propria persona, Abbott & Smith, Hoke Smith, and Haygood & Martin, for defendant.

BLECKLEY C.J.

1. When money awaiting the result of litigation is in the possession of a receiver at the place of permanent custody, and he has no further duty in respect to it but that of preservation, it is already in court, the receiver being the hand of the court to hold it; and he cannot pay it out, or part with his actual custody of it by depositing it in bank or otherwise, save at his own risk, without some order, leave, or direction authorizing him so to dispose of it. He is for the court that appointed him as much a final custodian as is the Bank of England for the court of chancery. His poundage or commissions are compensation for his risk, which is that of an official bailee for reward; and, while he may not be bound for more than ordinary diligence, his diligence is to be exercised in keeping the money, not in putting it out on deposit, either general or special. A general deposit in bank is a loan; and that the loan was made in good faith, and entered to his credit in bank as receiver, will not avail him. Though without any moral fault, or any legal fault but that of parting with the money, he is liable to make good the loss resulting from his banker's insolvency.

2. The case of Morgan v. Hardee, 71 Ga. 736, is no adjudication by this court that a receiver has a right to substitute the good credit of a banker for his own responsibility as ultimate custodian. To rule, as that case does, that there was no such material error of law as to require a new trial, is not to rule that there was no error of law committed by the court below, but rather, under the special facts, it was unnecessary to probe the alleged errors to the bottom. Morgan v. Hardee is not to be extended beyond its own facts; it is no interpretation of any general principle or rule of law. Phillips v. Lamar, 27 Ga. 228, settles nothing as to receivers, but only as to sheriffs, receivers being spoken of merely arguendo by the judge delivering the opinion.

3. High on Receivers, Kerr on Receivers, Lewin on Trusts, Perry on Trusts, Story on Bailments and on Agency, as cited in the argument, may be conceded to apply in Georgia as elsewhere to receivers, until the fund reaches its final form, and there is no duty left but to hold it for the court at the place of final custody. Thus it is in court. The court, in Georgia, has no official banker, and no bank but the receiver himself. He is its Bank of England; and the Bank of England would not...