Oswald v. Stewart
Oswald v. Stewart
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The Charles Wolff Packing Company, as intervener, appeals from an order approving the report of C. A. Kline, receiver, from an order discharging him as such receiver, and from an order overruling objections to his discharge:
On October 11, 1922, C. A. Kline was appointed receiver of the Stewart-Peck Southwestern Sand Company, and afterward qualified and acted as such. Under an order of the court, the receiver entered into a lease contract with the Charles Wolff Packing Company, the intervener, by which that company leased to the receiver certain real property occupied by a railroad track and used by the receiver in the operation of the plant under his control. By the lease, the receiver was to pay an annual rental of $250. On July 29,1925, the receiver was by the court ordered to sell the property in his hands free of encumbrances except $1,500 receiver’s certificates which had
The order discharging the receiver recites a number of outstanding accounts incurred during his receivership, among which is included one for the Wolff Packing Company of $333.36. The order also recites—
“That there are no funds in the hands of the receiver with which to pay said claims.
“That the receiver has filed his final report herein and has submitted therewith vouchers for payments made during said receivership, and where vouchers are missing has satisfied the court that the same were regularly paid, and the court finds that said report should be approved.
“The court further finds that there are no funds in the hands of the receiver with which to pay compensation to the receiver or to his attorney for their services; that there is no property in said receivership out of which same can be paid, and by reason thereof no allowance should be made for payment to the receiver for his services or for the services of his attorney.
“That the court costs in this case should be taxed against the defendant and that the receiver herein should b'e discharged and his bondsmen discharged from further obligation in this matter."
The objection to the discharge of the receiver was overruled, and he was discharged in accordance with the finding of the court. Under the circumstances, it was not error to overrule the objections of the intervener and to discharge the receiver.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Leona Oswald, doing business as The Southwestern Hay and Grain Company v. H. B. Stewart, Jr., doing business as The Stewart-Peck Southwestern Sand Company, Defendant (The Charles Wolff Packing Company, Intervener v. C. A. Kline as receiver of The Stewart-Peck Southwestern Sand Company, Appellee.)
- Status
- Published