Smith v. Solomon Valley Dredging Co.
Decision Date | 13 March 1928 |
Docket Number | 20897. |
Citation | 147 Wash. 69,264 P. 1009 |
Parties | SMITH v. SOLOMON VALLEY DREDGING CO. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Douglas, Judge.
Action by Leslie A. Smith against the Solomon Valley Dredging Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
H. E Foster, of Seattle, for appellant.
Byers & Byers and Jas. A. Dougan, all of Seattle, for respondent.
This action was brought in the superior court of King county in June, 1927, by Leslie A. Smith against the Solomon Valley Dredging Company, a corporation having its principal place of business in Seattle, to recover judgment in the sum of $1,431.17 alleged to be the balance due on account of labor performed for the defendant in the year 1926. It was further alleged that the corporation was insolvent and unable to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business, and that its assets were in danger of being dissipated. Among other things, the appointment of a receiver was asked. In response to a show cause order, the defendant appeared and resisted the application for a receiver. The application was heard upon affidavits. A receiver was appointed. The defendant has appealed.
Section 741, Rem. Comp. Stat., provides:
We have examined the proof in this case, and find that it clearly shows outstanding indebtedness, including a judgment, in considerable amounts altogether against the appellant not being paid, and that its business was carried on at a loss of approximately $4,000 the last year.
In this state the rule is that as against creditors a corporation is insolvent when it is unable to pay its debts in due course of business. Nixon v. Hendy Machine Works, 51 Wash 419, 99 P. 11; Ronald v. Schoenfeld, 94 Wash. 238 162 P. 43; McKay v. Sperry Flour Co., 95 Wash. 209, 163 P. 377; McKnight v. Shadbolt, 98 Wash. 665, 168 P. 473.
Appellant relying on High on Receivers (4th Ed.) § 406, contends, as we understand, that the power to appoint a receiver will not be exercised in favor of general creditors whose rights rest only in contract not yet reduced to judgment, and who have acquired no lien upon the property of the debtor. It may be admitted that, generally speaking, such is the rule. However, it has been modified by our statute in the case of insolvent corporations. Oleson v. Bank of Tacoma, 15 Wash. 148, 45 P. 734; Davis v. Edwards, 41 Wash. 480, 84 P. 22. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eldridge v. Payette-Boise Water Users' Ass'n
......747; John V. Farwell Co. v. Craney, 29 Idaho 85, 157 P. 383; Smith v. Solomon. Valley Dredging Co., 147 Wash. 69, 264 P. 1009; Davis v. ......
-
Peeples v. Hayes
......He was entitled. to that as a matter of right. Smith v. Solomon Valley. Dredging Co., 147 Wash. 69, 264 P. 1009. Assuming ......
-
Snyder v. Yakima Finance Corp.
...... jurisdiction are cited: Smith v. Brown, 50 Wash. 240, 96 P. 1077; Bergman Clay Mfg. Co. v. ... Co., 110 Wash. 460, 188 P. 489; Smith v. Solomon. Valley Dredging Co., 147 Wash. 69, 264 P. 1009. This is. the ......
-
Kreide v. Independence League of America
...... Aetna Investment Co., 110 Wash. 460, 188 P. 489;. Smith v. Solomon Valley Dredging Co., 147 Wash. 69,. 264 P. 1009; Snyder ......