109 Iowa 51 | Iowa | 1899
The appellants are not in a situation to attack the proceedings in which the receiver was appointed, the attachments sued out, and the assignments of accounts as fraudulent, either when taken together as constituting a general
II. On the same evening of the application for the appointment of a receiver, an amendment to the petition, averring that the company was about to dispose of its property and assign its account to secure preferred creditors, was filed, and a writ of injunction issued, enjoining the company from so doing. Service was acknowledged by the general manager, though he denies having knowledge of the contents of the writ, and he put in the entire night scheduling the accounts, and assigned about thirty thousand dollars of them
III. The fact that the proceedings were begun for the appointment of a receiver did not suspend the right of creditors to attach, nor that of the company to assign its accounts
IV. The receiver takes the debtor’s property subject to the payment, of all valid prior liens. Code, section 3825; Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S.
V. But the appellants have filed their claims, and these have been allowed. This gave them the right to insist, through their petition of intervention, on the just distribution of the assets of the estate, and that no preferences be given save those fixed by law. The creditors obtained nothing by virtue of their stipulation save the recognition and protection of existing liens, and, if more was attempted, it will be of no avail. It would be a novel practice which would permit creditors, not parties to the action, present in, court, by
YI. The receiver collected on the assigned accounts one thousand five hundred thirty-seven dollars and twenty cents more than enough to satisfy the indebtedness secured thereby, and this balance the court directed to be applied in payment of the claims of the attaching creditors. As seen, this could not