Melendy & Russell v. Barbour

Citations

• 78 Va. 544
• 1884 Va. LEXIS 29

Syllabus

<p>1. Appellate Jurisdiction—Decree against receiver.—One aggrieved by decree of court which appointed the receiver for or against whom the decree is rendered, may appeal in a proper case to this court, even if the receiver cannot question the decree of the court appointing him. Page v. Crockett, 27 Gratt. 735.</p> <p>2. Railway Receivers—Suit at law.—The established rule is that where a railway company is in the hands of a receiver appointed by a court of equity, the receiver cannot be sued at law without the permission of the appointing court. Barton v. Barbour, Receiver, 14 Otto, 126.</p> <p>3. Idem—Liability for negligent injury.—Such receivers may be held responsible for the damage actually sustained by a shipper of freight, through the negligence of the receiver’s agents and employees, in any case in which the company could be so held.</p> <p>4. Idem—Conflict of evidence—Issue—Case at bar.—Where upon petition filed in suit wherein a railway company had been put into a receiver’s hands, for damages sustained by petitioner by the negligent killing of the petitioner’s horse, alleged to have been of the value of $50,000, a reference had been made to a commissioner to ascertain and report the value of the horse, the commissioner, having taken all the evidence procurable, reported the horse to have been worth $40,000; but the court recommitted the report, and the commissioner took additional evidence, and reported the horse to have been worth only $1,000 ; the additional evidence does not warrant the last report, yet the evidence offered by petitioner as to the speed and celebrity of the horse does not sustain his claim to have the first report confirmed.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Both reports should be set aside and an issue directed to be tried by a jury at the bar of the court below to ascertain the amount of the damages sustained by the petitioner.</p>