Union Boom Co. v. Samish Boom Co.

Citations

• 33 Wash. 144
• 74 P. 53
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 500

Syllabus

<p>Receivers—Appointment to Collect Rents—Grounds—Sueeiciency oe Showing. In an action to recover the possession and rents and profits of tide lands at the mouth of a river claimed for booming purposes and adversely held by a rival company, the appointment of a receiver pendente lite is not warranted by a showing of plaintiff’s legal title, that plaintiff had lost a profit of $15,000 on logs boomed by defendant by being kept out of possession, that defendant’s capital stock was only $2,000, and it had no property from which damages could be collected, where there was no showing that logs would be boomed during the pendency of the suit, or that plaintiff would be entitled to the tolls thereon through contracts with the owners, or that it had the necessary appliances for booming purposes, or that defendant was mismanaging or injuring the property in dispute.</p> <p>Same-—Legal Title oe Plaintiee. Proof of a valid legal title in the plaintiff is insufficient in itself to warrant the appointment of a receiver without a showing of imminent danger or loss of rents and profits by reason of the mismanagement or insolvency of the defendant.</p> <p>Same—Discretion—Review. The discretion of the trial court upon appointing a receiver is not absolute, and the proofs will be examined, and the decision reversed if there is a clear preponderance of the testimony against it.</p>