Womach v. Sandygren

162 P. 354, 94 Wash. 256, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 679
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 13, 1917
DocketNo. 13595
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 P. 354 (Womach v. Sandygren) 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
Womach v. Sandygren, 162 P. 354, 94 Wash. 256, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 679 (Wash. 1917).

Opinion

Webster, J. —

Pending an action for partition of lands among tenants in common, respondents moved for the ap[257]*257pointment of a receiver pendente lite, and filed in support of the motion an affidavit showing, in substance, that a part of the land was in cultivation and that it was necessary that the same be put in crop for the ensuing season; that certain crops grown during the year 1915 were lying in the field where cut, at the mercy of the elements; that Amanda Sandygren, one of the cotenants, was endeavoring to take charge of the crops and refused to make any statement of the amount of grain grown or to account for same. Amanda Sandygren filed a counter affidavit, in effect denying the affidavit of respondents. On the showing so made, a receiver was appointed to take charge of all crops sown and grown on the premises and to safely keep the same until the final determination of the action.

The affidavit in support of the motion presents a prima ;facie case for the appointment- of a receiver and, upon the record before us, we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in the premises.

Affirmed.

•Ellis, C. J., Mourns, Main, and Chadwick, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Womach v. Sandygren
180 P. 922 (Washington Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 P. 354, 94 Wash. 256, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/womach-v-sandygren-wash-1917.