Ex Rel. Cameron v. District Court
228 P. 617
Nev.
1924
Check Treatment

*1 Ex Rel. DISTRICT CAMERON COURT No. 2641 5, September 228 Pac. 617. Contempt Appearance to Contest of Rule Cause Show — Proceedings. of Held to Confer. Jurisdiction attorney, appeared petitioners, bank and his cashier of Where why they not rule to show cause be contested moneys contempt, punished standing certain for for refusal deliver to corporation corporation, of to receiver of to credit persons acquired as well over their court full subject matter. Property May to Turn 2. Receivers —-Court Enforce Order Over by to Attachment or Writ of Possession. Receiver by possession property from receiver of is withheld When claiming parties others, them with notice to the suit or under appointment, court interfere sum- of mary way receiver’s for and enforce its order to receiver surrender by possession. property writ such attachment or by Summary Requirement Process of Constitutional Daw — Property Receiver Held Not to Violate Surrender Due Process Clause. by summary property by Requiring process surrender of appointed possession person of it third to take does receiver right decision of the case not or ultimate affect requirement manner of due as to constitutional violate process. Imprisonment Bank Daw — 4. Constitutional Cashier Deposit Depositor’s Receiver Not Refusal Surrender against Imprisonment of Inhibition for Debt. Violation Imprisonment for refusal of bank cashier corpora- obey moneys deposit to turn over on to credit of violate inhibition tion to its receiver did not constitutional imprisonment for debt. — of Receiver on Interference with Possession 5. Receivers Appointment Advised Not Permitted. Ground that III equity any permit will Courts of not unauthorized inter- justified possession of their on ference ground receivers to. appointment remedy illegal, the ill advised or being by application deeming of to erroneous itself; applying this yet receive, has reduced has but which he not Depends Right Case, on to Decide Not 6. Courts —Jurisdiction on Merits Decision. case, depends on Jurisdiction of a court decidé decision, merits and errors must be and never of its by appeal, and disobedience. corrected (1) p. 12, 02; 15, 27; 101, 13, 16, p. sec. See 13 C. J. sec. n. n. 40; 22; p. 15; 5) 167, p. 180, 72, p. 39, (2, n. n. n. ; 66; p. p. 28, p? p. 212, 217, 26, 207, 63, 64, 204, li. n. 45 n. 99S, 1223, (C) (3, 4) p. 15 C. X h. C. X see. n. p. 2G, 13, p. u. 49. see. n. see. State, prohibition proceeding

Original *2 another, against the relation of J. D. Cameron of Nevada of the State District Court Second Judicial County rule Heard on another. and for Washoe recalled, show cause and writ cause. Order to to show Rehearing denied. refused.

Cooke, Stoddard, French & for Petitioners: strangers and French are Cameron anything. therein, com- to do Order named not ordered Company deliver all mands Fairchild and Allied obey alleged money Huntington. is for refusal It punished. is ex Order order that Cameron is to be restraining, void mandatory, parte, injunctive, undertaking. It immaterial is because issued without appointing 32 C. J. receiver. that it is called order Laws, Stockslager, 162 Pac. Rev. v. McWaters within and French come Nor do Cameron 5140. by strangers interference unauthorized presupposes receiver with because rule pay Cameron could not possession. 5 Cal. Jur. 905. by check money directors or unless authorized

out day If in court. Bank entitled to usual course. recovered. paid money, equitable could have owners it Co., McStay Supply 35 Nev. v. S. Cook Co. John Rickey, Ex Parte 31 Nev.

Proceeding attempt of debt to coerce collection is Constitution, art. sec. 14. imprisonment. lien.

. creditor mere contract Plaintiff fatally no defective and confers Complaint is therefore order. Rev. appoint or make receiver jurisdiction to relief. Rev. Stranger invoke Laws, cannot Laws, 4986. Fairchild, right with in bank

Title vested Rickey, supra. any trustee, Ex Parte at time. to collect appointment of no case for of trustee made Death 264, 344; (5th ed.), Perry secs. on Trusts receiver. Proceedings Davis, 2 South. v. Shannon legal representatives were stayed until have Love, Laws, 5004-8; brought v. Judson in. Rev. Cal. 364. obey no order court has to fail to

It is not Harwood, 35 v. to make. McKinnon Nev. 393. money, creditors, equitably real were owners

Other hearing indispensable parties before order Dietz, 24 Pac. 3 Pom. made. Scrivner v. could be Jur., 1086; 5 Eq. C. J. 1069. parte appointment ex

In absence of statute Bank, Whitney void, and assailed. can be Tardy’s given. 2 Smith on 33. Notice must be South. (2d ed.), 1964. Receivers Respondents: McKnight, for

Wm. authority appoint receiver on death authority by statute, court had In absence of trustee. *3 vacancy. chancery powers fill Bátesville v. virtue of (U. 1207. Kaufman, S.) 5 C. J. 18 Wall. made where debtor has be Receiver being application assignment property is wasted on or v. simple Mellen creditor. 3 Cal. Jur. of contract Works, 352. 23 C. L. 131 U. S. R. Moline Iron Bank, 45 734. v. Pac. Oleson showing proper parte, was since was not ex Order assignee Insolvency Laws, of 5193. made. Rev. may appoint appointment. good Court cause 1207; Connah v. motion, 5 J. without notice. C. own Sedgwick, 1 210. Barb. anyway, exceeded not have

Court would already. subject matter since it Railey, Maynard 2 Nev. 313. v. necessary of Allied to make directors

It was not dissolu- Appointment did not work Company parties. Thompson Cyc. 182; on Cor- corporation. 34 tion of (2d ed.), 6486. porations secs. assignment

Trust under for benefit of creditors is personal pass and does not to successor. Woessner v.- Crank, 318; Hayne Seally, App. 3 S. W. v. 35 Div. N. Y. 633. Court money immediately

Receiver became entitled to deposit, Bond- to credit trustee. 23 R. C. L. Am. Williams, ing Co. v. 131 S. 652. Bank did own W. not money. Fuller, Smith v. 99 N. E. 214. did Creditors money. Hagerty, own McNeill E. 526. v. N. Money supra. Fuller, was of trust. Smith Title vested successor. C. J. petitioners

Refusal of to deliver after demand contempt. Laws, order was Rev. 5394. Disobedi- jurisdiction, ence even erroneous if court had contempt. PL, Sutherland Code 1581. That one Attorney acted under advice is no 13 C. J. 43. defense. guilty. Vance,

is also Ex Parte 26 Pac. 118. acquired jurisdiction petitioners they when

appeared. Jones, In Re Cohen v. Cal. 393. n imprisonment There could be no when no debt . Rosser, A.

debt existed. In 41 C. C. Re Validity challenged cannot col- proceeding. Works, supra. Mellen lateral v. Moline Iron

OPINION

By Court, Sanders, J.: original proceeding

This is an prohibition. The upon comes us respond- the answer judge ent court and thereof to a rule to show cause they prohibited carrying from into execu- judgment finding tion petitioners the relators and guilty of court. It respondent conceded court caused

petitioners, Cameron, J. D. cashier of the Stock Growers’ Reno, French, and Ranchers’ Bank of L. N. his *4 attorney, to be served with a rule to show cause they punished contempt as for for their Huntington, and failure refusal deliver to John G.

receiver, $18,085.75 deposit the sum on in bank said Fairchild, credit D. to the of M. trustee for the Allied Company, corporation, Land and Live Stock a for which company Huntington appointed by had been respondent order It is conceded in court. that appeared obedience to rule the the relators Nev. phases. the in all its matter court the contested by hearing objections interposed the a full After objections proceeding, contempt to the relators overruled, as wit- the relators offered themselves were adjudged guilty in their own behalf were nesses pronouncement day a fixed for the that, opinion the relators judgment. are of when We cause, appeared the rule show the court and contested persons acquired their as well as full over n the subject matter. Jones, Cohen and 5 Cal. In the case of Parte parties corpus, caused habeas the district court the why they a to show cause served with rule to be posses- property in deliver certain their not be ordered to they the case a to which sion parties, they and in obedience to the rule were appeared the before the court. and contested that, they appeared The court held when and filed their rule, acquired answer to this the court full persons, subject over their as well as the matter. general 2. As a courts will not interfere a rule stranger summary way possession the of a claiming title, by paramount to the action but will leave question by proper the of title be tried a action brought purpose. When, however, posses the suit, by sion is withheld to the' others or claiming parties, appoint under with notice of the (as case), ment of the receiver this there can be no authority question as interfere in summary way and enforce for the surrender property writ of attachment or High Receivers, provision power not conflict This does with the deprived that no man shall be of his

lawof (Ex Jones, process of law Parte Cohen and due supra), surrender since the the receiver does not or the ultimate decision of affect (34 Cyc. that, 180). opinion the case are also of We matter of the cause was since show specific under sum of the control of Cameron *5 bank, said the order cannot be said to as cashier of imprisonment provision conflict with the of law Cyc. for debt. 9 insisted, however,

5. It was that the court appointment a jurisdiction and in the exceeded its receivership consequently all in the orders agree. proceeding this we are unable to were void. In appointment The the receiver have been erro us, facts, question not before but the neous under the usurped jurisdiction. court in no sense or exceeded .its permit any equity inter Courts of will not unauthorized possession of their receivers to be ference with the ground appointment justified upon the of the the that illegal. advised ill-advised or French receiver was appointment of the receiver Cameron that the Parties, illegal. with or insufficient and dissatisfied proper erroneous, deeming take the must validity by application the question its to course any person competent itself, and it is not possession upon ground the interfere the receiver’s improvideritly This appointment was made. that his actually in the receiver’s not limited to he has possession, also to but extends yet receive, but which he has not been Receivers, High reduced attempt purpose to no useful It would serve persuade argument of counsel exhaustive answer the appoint a jurisdiction to was without that the court us respondents answer of An examination receiver. the court convinces us show cause

to the order and of may have appointment the receiver The matter. erroneous, of this all but improvidently made or thoroughly thrashed out appears have been upon proceeding and receivership in the the court The cause. to the rule show objections case, to decide upon depends a court Errors must be decision. of its upon merits never Holbrook disobedience. by appeal, corrected Co., v. James H. App. 480, Prichard Motor 27 Ga. S. E. 164. pass upon questions

We do not raised counsel legality the relators to the *6 simply receiver. We hold that whether not, erroneous or was within the court, and that the court had and the involved in the rule to show cause punished relators contempt.

The order to show cause herein recalled, and the petition prohibition for the writ of is refused.

Ducker, I C. J.: concur.

Coleman, general I J.: concur in principles foregoing law opinion. stated in the Rehearing On Petition February 10, 1925.

Per Curiam:

Rehearing denied.