Screven v. William L

• Decision Date: 31 January 1873
• Citation: 48 Ga. 42
• Parties: John L. Screven, receiver, plaintiff in error. vs. William L,Clark, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 Ga. 42

John L. Screven, receiver, plaintiff in error. vs. William L, Clark, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1873.)

Equity. Receiver. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. October Term, 1872.

John L. Screven, as receiver of the Brunswick and Albany Railroad, brought trover against William L. Clark, for eight box, railroad freight-cars, of the value of $15,000 00. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Upon the trial, the only evidence introduced of the authority of the plaintiff to institute said suit, was the following order:

*"RuFus B. Bullock, Governor, who sues for the interest of the State of Georgia et al., vs. Jacob Dart et al.

"Bill, etc., in Gynn Superior Court.

"At Chambers, Blackshear, Ga., Oct. 30th, 1871.

"It appearing to the Court that since the filing of complainant's bill in the foregoing cause, John L. Screven, the receiver appointed by the Governor of Georgia, has accepted said trust:

"It is ordered that said John L. Screven be, and he is hereby appointed, temporary receiver of the Brunswick and AIbany Railroad Company, and of all its property of every kind. And he is hereby ordered to collect immediately all said property together, and hold the same subject to the further order of the Court. Granted by me, at Chambers, this 30th day of November, 1871.

(Signed) "William M. Sessions, J. S. C, B. C."

When the evidence was closed, the Court charged the jury that the order aforesaid did not authorize the receiver to institute a suit; to which charge the plaintiff excepted.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Whereupon the plaintiff assigns the charge aforesaid as error.

Moses & Downing, for plaintiff in error.

Ingram & Crawford, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

The rule is perhaps an arbitrary one, but it is, nevertheless, well settled that a receiver has no right to sue without express authority from the Chancellor; his general authority to collect and keep the assets is not sufficient to justify him in bringing an action: Daniel's Chancery Practice, 1988, et seq. A receiver is at last only an officer of the Court, and the foundation of the rule, probably is, that it is always for the Court itself to determine whether it shall be dragged into litigation. At law, the party having the legal right to sue is *the proper party,

and if one comes suing for the property of another, he must show, as part of his right to recover, the authority he has to come into a Court of...