Briegel v. Payne

District of Columbia

Briegel v. Payne

155 F.2d 424, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 27, 1946

DocketNo. 9154

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 F.2d 424 (Briegel v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Briegel v. Payne, 155 F.2d 424, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215 (D.D.C. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee sued appellant for dissolution of an alleged partnership or joint adventure, an accounting, and appointment of a receiver. The District Court found that as to certain contracts obtained before August 19, 1943, appellant and appellee had been engaged in a joint adventure. The court directed its auditor to determine the amount of appellee’s one-half share in the profits. Afterwards, on November 5, 1945, the court appointed appellee’s counsel as receiver to take possession of the joint funds and hold them until further order of the court. This appeal is from the order of November 5. Appointment of 'a receiver was within the court’s discretion. Creel v. Creel, 63 App. D.C. 384, 73 F.2d 107. It is immaterial that the Creel case involved partners while this case involves joint adventurers. Appellant interprets the order of November 5 as including funds arising from contracts obtained after August 18, 1943, but this interpretation is erroneous.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellee sued appellant for dissolution of an alleged partnership or joint adventure, an accounting, and appointment of a receiver. The District Court found that as to certain contracts obtained before August 19, 1943, appellant and appellee had been engaged in a joint adventure. The court directed its auditor to determine the amount of appellee’s one-half share in the profits. Afterwards, on November 5, 1945, the court appointed appellee’s counsel as receiver to take possession of the joint funds and hold them until further order of the court. This appeal is from the order of November 5. Appointment of 'a receiver was within the court’s discretion. Creel v. Creel, 63 App. D.C. 384, 73 F.2d 107. It is immaterial that the Creel case involved partners while this case involves joint adventurers. Appellant interprets the order of November 5 as including funds arising from contracts obtained after August 18, 1943, but this interpretation is erroneous.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F.2d 424, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briegel-v-payne-dcd-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack