Sengfelder v. Hill

Decision Date26 January 1897
Citation47 P. 757,16 Wash. 355
PartiesSENGFELDER ET AL. v. HILL ET AL.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; Jesse Arthur, Judge.

Action by John Sengfelder and another against Henry Hill, S. A. Wells, John A. Peacock, and others. From an order appointing a receiver, defendants appeal. Reversed.

A. G Avery and Blake & Post, for appellants.

GORDON J.

Plaintiffs in the court below (respondents here) brought this action to recover possession of certain real property, described in the complaint, located in the city of Spokane, and for damages and a receiver pendente lite to take charge of the property and collect the rents, etc. Upon the property in dispute there is a large, four-story building, occupied by numerous tenants. The amended complaint alleges that the respondents are the owners in fee and entitled to the possession of the property, and that the appellants, without right or title entered into possession of it, and unlawfully withhold possession, to plaintiffs' damage in the sum of $25,000. Thereafter, and within the time in which the appellants were by law permitted to answer, and prior to any answer, respondents moved for the appointment of a receiver. A hearing was had, and a receiver appointed to take charge of said property. The defendants appeal.

In opposition to the motion for the appointment of a receiver the appellants introduced numerous affidavits to the effect that appellants Breslauer, Wise, and Ostroski were the owners in fee of the property in dispute; that they derived title by deed of general warranty from respondent C. W. Carson, to whom they had paid $110,000 as purchase price thereof; that, pursuant to such purchase, they entered into possession of the property, and had been in actual, open, and notorious possession thereof, and of the whole thereof, for upward of three years prior to the commencement of the action; that their codefendants and appellants were their tenants; that the legal title to said premises of record in the office of the auditor of said county was in said appellants Breslauer, Wise, and Ostroski; that they were solvent, and abundantly able to respond in damages, if damages should be awarded against them. No other proof of title in either party was offered or received upon the hearing. It would seem to require little argument to demonstrate that the order appointing a receiver, under the circumstances, was unwarranted. "The rule seems to be universal, in this country and in England, that whenever the contest is simply a question of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bergman Clay Mfg. Co. v. Bergman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 21, 1913
    ......12, 37 P. 26; Wales v. Dennis, 9 Wash. 308, 37 P. 450; Brundage v. Home. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 11 Wash. 277, 39 P. 666;. Sengfelder v. Hill, 16 Wash. 355, 47 P. 757, 58 Am. St. Rep. 36; Spokane v. Amsterdamsch Trustees. Kantoor, 18 Wash. 81, 50 P. 1088; Ridpath v. San. ......
  • Smith v. White
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • June 5, 1901
    ...reason, but it is supported by authority. State v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 13 Mont. 416, 34 Pac. 609;Sengfelder v. Hill, 16 Wash. 355, 47 Pac. 757;Bennallack v. Richards, 125 Cal. 427, 58 Pac. 65;Emerson's Appeal, 95 Pa. 258. Whether there may be authority to appoint a rece......
  • Smith v. White
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • June 5, 1901
    ...... foregoing rule based upon right reason, but it is supported. by authority. State v. District Court, 13 Mont. 416,. 34 P. 609; Sengfelder v. Hill, 16 Wash. 355, 47 P. 757; Bennallack v. Richards, 125 Cal. 427, 58 P. 65;. Emerson's Appeal, 95 Pa. 258. Whether there may. be authority ......
  • City of Seattle v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • June 28, 1918
    ...... answer. The last-amended answer must be considered complete. for purposes therein alleged. In Sengfelder v. Hill,. 16 Wash. 355, 47 P. 757, 58 Am. St. Rep. 36, it is said:. . . 'When he elects to amend and does amend, he must stand. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT