Woods v. Capitol Hill State Bank

• Decision Date: 06 June 1921
• Docket Number: 9974.
• Parties: WOODS v. CAPITOL HILL STATE BANK et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

199 P. 964

70 Colo. 221

WOODS v. CAPITOL HILL STATE BANK et al.

No. 9974.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 6, 1921

Department 1.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Greeley W Whitford, Judge.

Action by the Capitol Hill State Bank against the Roamer Motor Car Company in which a receiver was appointed for the defendant and thereafter Clifford R. Woods and others intervened and moved to vacate the order appointing the receiver. Motion denied and the intervener Woods brings error.

Order affirmed.

Charles K. Phillips and Wayne A. Gunkle, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Garwood & Garwood, of Denver (J. W. Kelley, of Denver, of counsel) for defendants in error.

ALLEN J.

This cause is before us upon writ of error to review an order appointing a receiver. The review is authorized by rule 17 of this court, which provides as follows:

'An order appointing, or denying the appointment of, or sustaining, or overruling a motion to discharge, a receiver may be reviewed on error, before final judgment, if prompt application for that purpose is made.'

The Capitol Hill State Bank, as plaintiff, brought an action against the Roamer Motor Car Company, a domestic corporation, as defendant. The complaint prayed for a money judgment and for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant answered, admitting all the allegations of the complaint. The defendant has not at any time, so far as the record shows, resisted the application for the appointment of a receiver. The court appointed a receiver. Thereafter several parties intervened in the action. A petition in intervention was filed by Clifford R. Woods, claiming to be the owner of two-thirds of the capital stock of the defendant corporation, and praying that the order appointing a receiver be vacated. The record also shows a motion filed by Woods, the intervener above mentioned, to vacate the order appointing a receiver, upon the ground that the court 'is without jurisdiction,' and that it 'is improper to appoint a receiver for said corporation upon the application of a simple contract creditor.' The motion was denied. The ruling in that connection is assigned as error, and under rule 17, above quoted, is the only alleged error that can be considered at this time.

The record shows that the defendant debtor appeared, and by a sworn answer confessed the debt and admitted all the allegations upon which plaintiff grounded its application...