Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 43
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] RYAN v. HAYS. 43
and assuming all debts and liabilities against him as receiver, and providing
for executing to him an indemnifying bond. The receiver was finally discharged
from his trust in December, 1879. On the 15th of October, 1879,
suit was brought against the receiver, and against the railway company, to
recover damages for injuries inflicted on plaintiff through the negligence of
its servants, at a time when the road was under the exclusive management
and control of the receiver, but it was not claimed that he was responsible
otherwise than officially, as receiver. Held:
(1) The receiver was not liable to plaintiff after all the property, once in
his control as receiver, had been turned over to the purchasers, and after he
had received his discharge from the court.
(2) With the discharge of such receiver from his trust, and the surrender
of all property in his hands as receiver, his liability, being an official one,
ceased, except in cases where he was personally, at fault.
(3) It is technically true that the relation of master and servant does not
exist between a railway company and a receiver, when the company's property
is placed in his possession by a proper court, and he is required by its
order to discharge with the property of the company the duty of a common
carrier. Citing cases, for which see opinion.
(4) While this is true, the profits or income of the property, while in the
hands of the receiver, are responsible for the satisfaction of claims for injuries
resulting from the negligence of the receiver or of his employees.
(5) The question whether, when a receiver is appointed on the application
of mortgage creditors, they can be required to yield from the proceeds of
the sale of the mortgaged property a sum sufficient to pay for freight lost,
or for damages or injuries done passengers through the negligence of the
receiver or his employees, not considered.
(6) If the company was not responsible for damages sustained by plaintiff,
through the negligence of the servants of the receiver, further than its current
receipts while in his hands, it follows that the company would incur no
obligation to pay such damages, from the mere fact that they purchased the
property front those who bought it at the receiver's sale.
(7) A valid claim for damages against the receiver was entitled to satisfaction
out of the current receipts applied to satisfy mortgage creditors, or to
the improvement of the railway property; and the court appointing the
receiver would have had authority to apply such portion of the proceeds of
the mortgage sale as would equal such applied current receipts or the value
of such improvements, to satisfy such claim for damages.
(8) The resolution of the directors, providing for an indemnifying bond to
the receiver, inured to the benefit of any one contemplated by it, having a
just debt or claim against the receiver as such, or personally.
(9) A claim for damages caused by injuries inflicted by the servants of a
receiver, while he is operating a railroad, is entitled to payment out of the
current receipts of the road; and if they are invested in betterments of the
road, then such claim is entitled to satisfaction out of proceeds of sale of
the road to satisfy a mortgage, to the extent of the value of such betterments.
2. VERDICT.- See opinion for a verdict held to be neither a general nor a special
verdict, and not sufficient to authorize a judgment in this case.
APPEAL from Anderson. Tried below before the IIon. Peyton
The case is stated in the opinion.
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/65/: accessed July 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .