Singerly v. Fox
| Decision Date | 19 January 1874 |
| Citation | 75 Pa. 112 |
| Parties | Singerly <I>versus</I> Fox. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., MERCUR and GORDON, JJ. SHARSWOOD, J., at Nisi Prius
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 219, of January Term 1874 J. H. Gendell and E. S. Miller, for plaintiff in error.—A receiver is not at liberty to bring or to defend actions; or to let the estate; or to lay out money, unless by special leave of the court: 2 Story's Eq. Jur., § 833, a. No title is vested in him. The court itself has the care of property in dispute: Edwards on Receivers 4; Kerr on Receivers 132. An agent selling the goods of his principal in his name and as his agent, cannot ordinarily sue on the contract as for goods sold and delivered: Story on Agency, § 391; Yeager v. Wallace, 8 Wright 294. In a proper case there may be a set-off against a receiver: Waterman on Set-off 192, 456; Receivers v. The Patterson Gas Light Co., 3 Zabriskie 283. The Act of 16th June 1836, §§ 83-4, Pamph. L. 777, 1 Br. Purd. 438-9, pl. 47-8, is applicable to this case. The goods being in the custody of the law, the landlord was as in the case of an execution and could not distrain. The receiver being a mere custodian of the property, and the sale having been ordered by the court, not only the possession, but the sale itself is that of the court: 2 Story's Eq. Jur., § 829; Edwards on Receivers 6. In the Estate of Appold, a bankrupt, 6 Phila. R. 469, the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered rent to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the goods of the estate on the premises: In re Wynne, 4 Bankr. R. 5, cited in 7 Phila. R. 611.
S. N. Rich, for defendant in error.—Where the cause of action arises after the appointment of the receiver, he may sue in his own name: Pitt v. Snowdon, 3 Atkins 750; Story on Agency, sect. 391. The action should be in the name of him who has the legal interest: 1 Chitty's Pl. 2-6; Wilmarth v. Mountford, 8 S. & R. 124; Kline v. Guthart, 2 Penna. R. 490; Receivers v. Paterson Gas Light Co., 3 Zabriskie 283. Debts to be set off must be in the same right: Stuart v. Commonwealth, 8 Watts 75; Darroch v. Hays, 2 Yeates 208; Wolfersberger v. Bucher, 10 S. & R. 10; Coffman v. Hampton, 2 W. & S. 377. Rent is a lien only after distress; a distress cannot be made on goods in the hands of a receiver without leave of the court: Nock v. Gibson, 7 Paige 513.
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 19th 1874, by GORDON, J.
It is no doubt law that a receiver has no legal title in the assets which he is appointed to collect, and that without authority from the court he cannot maintain trover where they have been wrongfully converted previously to his possession: Yeager v. Wallace, 8 Wright 294. But where the goods have actually come into his possession it can hardly be contended that he could not maintain this action against one who wrongfully invaded such possession and converted the goods committed to his care. Were such not the case he would not rise to the dignity and power of the most ordinary bailee. He would be the merest automaton that ever sprang from a legal workshop. In the case in hand, the goods were in the possession of the receiver and were sold by him by virtue of the power conferred upon him by the court for that purpose. The contract of sale was with him; his receipt for the money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. Golden
...out of the actual possession of the receiver may be had in an action by the receiver in his own name. State v. Gambs, 68 Mo. 289;Singerly v. Fox, 75 Pa. 112;Biggs v. Bowen, 170 N.C. 34, 86 S.E. 692. In Biggs v. Bowen, 170 N.C. 34, 86 S.E. 692, 693, Biggs was a receiver and brought suit agai......
-
In re Pressed Steel Car Co. of New Jersey, 6585.
...the property is in the custody of the court. The receiver has possession of the property subject to the orders of the court. Singerly v. Fox, 75 Pa. 112; United States Brick Co. v. Brick Co., 228 Pa. 81, 77 A. 395; Blum Bros. v. Girard National Bank, 248 Pa. 148, 93 A. 940, Ann. Cas.1916D, ......
-
Rosenblum v. Uber
... ... The mere accident that in this instance these rent ... credits were collected by the landlord gives him no right to ... withhold them from the Trustee and no right to retain them ... and use them as a set-off against his general claim for rent ... due him from the estate. In Singerly v. Fox, 75 Pa ... 112, where a landlord set off his debt to a receiver for ... goods purchased against a debt due by the receiver to the ... landlord for rent, the Supreme Court, on disallowing the ... set-off, said: ... 'We ... can readily see how, at least this part of the ... ...
-
Waddell v. Shelton Gasoline Co.
...667, 53 L. R. A. 870; Skip v. Harwood, 3 Atk. 564; Gresley v. Adderley, 1 Swanst. 573; Green v. Bostwick, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N.Y.) 185; Singerly v. Fox, 75 Pa. 112; Kerr on Receivers, 158. The plaintiff here was a or, as it is sometimes called, a common-law, receiver, not a statutory one. United......