Pacific Coast Trading Co. v. Bellingham Bay Base Ball Ass'n

51 P. 382, 18 Wash. 245, 1897 Wash. LEXIS 146
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 11, 1897
DocketNo. 2570
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 51 P. 382 (Pacific Coast Trading Co. v. Bellingham Bay Base Ball Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pacific Coast Trading Co. v. Bellingham Bay Base Ball Ass'n, 51 P. 382, 18 Wash. 245, 1897 Wash. LEXIS 146 (Wash. 1897).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered hy

Gordon, J.

In October, 1891, the appellant commenced an action in the superior court for Whatcom county to recover of the defendant Bellingham Bay Base Ball Association, a corporation, a balance upon an open account, amounting to $525. In its complaint appellant alleged that the defendant corporation was insolvent and ashed for the appointment of a receiver, who qualified, collected about $170, and was discharged before the distribution of the money so collected hy him was made. Thereafter the respondents, who were judgment creditors of the defendant, petitioned the court for the appointment of another receiver, and the appointment was made.

On January 9, 1897, an order was made which adjudged the claim of the plaintiff barred hy the statute of limitations, and directed the receiver to distribute among the other creditors (respondents herein) the fund then on hand. The appeal is from that order and judgment. [246]*246It does not appear from tlie record that the defendant, the Bellingham Bay Base Ball Association was ever served with summons, or that it ever appeared in the action.

The respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no notice thereof was served upon the receiver. ¥e think the motion must he granted. The receiver was a proper party and entitled to he served with notice.

It follows that the motion must he granted and the appeal dismissed.

Dunbar and Reavis, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Physicians & Hospitals Supply Co. v. Johnson
44 N.W.2d 224 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
State v. Liliopoulos
10 P.2d 564 (Washington Supreme Court, 1932)
State v. Ewert
219 N.W. 817 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1928)
State v. Jackson
145 P. 470 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)
Sipes v. Puget Sound Electric Railway Co.
97 P. 723 (Washington Supreme Court, 1908)
State v. Mann
81 P. 561 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 P. 382, 18 Wash. 245, 1897 Wash. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-coast-trading-co-v-bellingham-bay-base-ball-assn-wash-1897.