Joost v. Bennett

California Supreme Court Jan 30, 1899 No. S. F. No. 880Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A receiver cannot be sued directly by a third party for services rendered to the receiver; such claims must be presented to the court that appointed the receiver as an expenditure for which the receiver seeks reimbursement.

Issues

Whether a third party can maintain a direct action against a receiver for services rendered to the receiver in the management of the estate.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the absence of a rental contract for the second cause of action were supported by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The action against the receiver, as such, for the services which it is averred were rendered by plaintiff, cannot be maintained.”

“Neither Joost, for services of this character, nor the attorney for the receiver, had any claim directly against the property in the hands of the receiver.”

Synopsis

Receiver—Action'for Services—Allowance by Court.—An action will not He for services rendered to a receiver of a railroad corporation in aiding and supplementing the superintendence due from the receiver; but all charges for services rendered to the receiver, of whatever kind, are to be allowed by the court to the receiver as part of his expenses, and not to the claimant. Such charges are in this respect like the expenses of administration incurred by an administrator.

Id.—Defense of Pending Actions by Receiver—Direction of Court.— In no case should a receiver of a railroad corporation undertake the defense of any actions pending against the corporation at the date of his appointment, unless directed or authorized to do so by the court.

TEMPLE, J. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought and prosecuted by leave of the court in which the receiver was appointed, against the defendant herein as such receiver, for causes alleged in the complaint.

The complaint contains two causes of action. In the first, after showing the due appointment of the defendant, it is averred: “That plaintiff herein was employed by, and rendered services to, said Sanford Bennett, as such said receiver, at his request, in the necessary and proper services and management of the property, business, and operations of said San Francisco and San Mateo Railway Company, and in the defense of its interests, and in the prosecution of its rights and claims in numerous proceedings and actions at law, and in the preparations for the trials of said actions, and in becoming informed upon and regarding the same, and in settling and adjusting the claim and demands made in and by said actions against said San Francisco and San Mateo Railway Company and its property, and by the parties and persons who were and are prosecuting their said claims against said railway company and its property, through and by said actions. That said services were performed by plaintiff for and at the request of defendant, as aforesaid, from or about the first day of September, A. D. 1894, to the first day of March, A. D. 1896, and was so performed in and concerning and pertaining to the rights, property, and interests of said San Fran[426]cisco and San Mateo Railway Company, under the charge, direction, and management of said defendant, as such said receiver, in the following causes and proceedings, viz., in consulting, advising, and operating with and instructing said defendant, receiver, and his legal counsel and attorneys, in the following actions and causes, and the property, claims, and affairs involved therein, viz.”; then follows the enumeration of thirty-eight different actions by their titles, then pending against the said corporation; also the statement of a controversy between said corporation and the Market Street Railway Company in regard to protecting the franchise for railroad purposes on Frederick street; also, the controversy with the same street railway company as to mutual accommodations of their respective railways on Valencia and Fourteenth streets, Castro and Eighteenth, Mission and Fourteenth, and Sixth and Harrison streets, Sixth and Bryant streets, and Fifth and Bryant streets, in said city and county of San Francisco; also, in arranging a controversy between the corporation and said Market Street Railway Company, on Stanyan street between Waller and Frederick; also, in resisting attempts made by and on behalf of the board of supervisors, and certain members composing said board, of the city and county of San Francisco, to declare and order vacated the franchise for railroad purposes granted to the said corporation. Then follows an averment as to the value of the said services.

Joost v. Bennett

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief