Perry v. Gillespie

Supreme Court of Kansas

Perry v. Gillespie

215 P. 274, 113 Kan. 557, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 155

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 12, 1923

DocketNo. 24,914

StatusPublished

This text of 215 P. 274 (Perry v. Gillespie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perry v. Gillespie, 215 P. 274, 113 Kan. 557, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 155 (kan 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Marshall, J.:

This is an appeal growing out of the appointment of a receiver in the foreclosure action mentioned in the preceding opinion, Perry v. Gillespie, ante, p. 555. On April 8, 1922, D. H. Martin was appointed receiver of the property described in the foreclosure action. Defendant Joseph Gillespie gave a bond in the sum of $7,000, conditioned that he would account and be responsible to the plaintiff for all rents and profits arising from the property prior to the sale in the foreclosure action in the event that the decision and order of the district court appointing a receiver should be affirmed. The judgment appointing the receiver was appealed to the supreme court, and the appeal was there dismissed in October, 1922. Joseph Gillespie filed a report accounting for all the rent from the property from May 1, 1922, to and including December, 1922, but did not account for the rent from April 8, 1922, to May 1, 1922, amounting to $265.07. He was ordered to account for that sum, and from that order he appeals.

As between the receiver and Joseph Gillespie, the owner of the property, the former was entitled to the possession thereof from and after his appointment as receiver. (34 Cyc. 204-210.) The bond given by Joseph Gillespie enabled him to retain possession of the [558]*558property. He should pay to the receiver or account for the rent from the time that the receiver was entitled to the possession thereof, the 8th day of April, 1922.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Marshall, J.:

This is an appeal growing out of the appointment of a receiver in the foreclosure action mentioned in the preceding opinion, Perry v. Gillespie, ante, p. 555. On April 8, 1922, D. H. Martin was appointed receiver of the property described in the foreclosure action. Defendant Joseph Gillespie gave a bond in the sum of $7,000, conditioned that he would account and be responsible to the plaintiff for all rents and profits arising from the property prior to the sale in the foreclosure action in the event that the decision and order of the district court appointing a receiver should be affirmed. The judgment appointing the receiver was appealed to the supreme court, and the appeal was there dismissed in October, 1922. Joseph Gillespie filed a report accounting for all the rent from the property from May 1, 1922, to and including December, 1922, but did not account for the rent from April 8, 1922, to May 1, 1922, amounting to $265.07. He was ordered to account for that sum, and from that order he appeals.

As between the receiver and Joseph Gillespie, the owner of the property, the former was entitled to the possession thereof from and after his appointment as receiver. (34 Cyc. 204-210.) The bond given by Joseph Gillespie enabled him to retain possession of the [558]*558property. He should pay to the receiver or account for the rent from the time that the receiver was entitled to the possession thereof, the 8th day of April, 1922.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 P. 274, 113 Kan. 557, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-gillespie-kan-1923.