Betts

Betts v. Bisher

Good Law
130 C.C.A. 161·213 F. 581·1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1914
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 4, 1914No. 2359California2,325 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

On July 29, 1912, the defendant in error, while engaged in insulating certain electric wires of the electric power plant of the Cornucopia Mines Company, a corporation, sustained serious personal injuries, for which he recovered damages in the court below, against the receiver of such corporation. The parties to the action will be designated herein plaintiff and defendant, as in the court below.

[1] The objection is made that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the action; that the fact that the cause of action was against a receiver appointed by the court below, and was based upon the alleged negligence of the receiver in managing the property of 'the receivership, was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction where there was no diversity of citizenship and no federal question involved. In White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36, 39 , 15 Sup. Ct. 1019 ( 40 L. Ed. 67 ), the court said that a suit against a receiver—

By this, it was not meant that the jurisdiction of actions against the receiver in the court in which he was appointed is confined to actions for the recovery of debts which existed at the time when he was appointed, and as incidental to the distribution of the property in the…

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.