Bibby

Bibby v. Dieter

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 45·1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 18·113 P. 874
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1910Civ. No. 754.California1,324 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

The action is in claim and delivery. Defendant denied the plaintiff’s ownership• and right to the possession of any of the property, and, as a further defense, alleged that he was holding the property by virtue of his appointment as receiver in an action commenced in the superior court of Lassen county by H. H. Wiencke against Samuel Bibby; that his accounts as such receiver have not been settled by said superior court, nor has any compensation been allowed him, though he has spent over $200 in earing for said property; that there is another action pending between the same parties; that the plaintiff has not capacity to sue, and that the court has no jurisdiction of the action.

On the twenty-fourth day of August, 1909, the order was made granting the application of the said Wiencke for the appointment of the said Dieter as receiver in said action. Before the making of said order no bond nor undertaking was fixed or required by said court of said applicant as required by section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor w.as any bond or undertaking made, offered or given before the making of said order. After said receiver had entered on the discharge of his duties and taken…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.