Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 213
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] WEEMS v. LATHROP. 213
Opinion of the Court.
alleged to be insolvent) and his securities had the right to
have his accounts passed before the court, and to turn over the
property and have the bond canceled. If they had applied to
be allowed to do so, doubtless the privilege would have been
accorded and liberal terms conceded to them. Not having done
so, it would seem that the court had no means of ascertaining
what was due from Brooks. As he was dead, the ordinary
remedy of proceeding against the receiver for contempt of
court was impracticable, and under these circumstances it has
been held the remedy is against the sureties on their bond
(Ludgater v. Channell, 3 Mac and Ger. (49 Eng. Ch.), 175;
Kerr on Receivers, 239, 240).
The objection that Lathrop was not a party to the bond has
no force. Under the order of the court he represents all parties
interested in having the bond enforced, and had the right
to sue in his own name. No authority to use the names of
others was required.
We have disposed of the questions argued in appellant's
brief, and regard them as decisive of the case. Whilst in
doing so we have endeavored to follow the rules and decisions
of Courts of Equity, it is proper to observe that the difference
in the organization of our courts makes these rules often inapplicable
under our practice. We have no statute regulating
the subject of receivers. Though the authority of the courts
to appoint them has been long recognized, yet the record in
this case shows that the practice in making such appointments,
and in calling the officer to account, is unsettled and loose.
Appellee Lathrop was appointed without at first any designation
of his duties. Brooks appears to have acted for at least
ten or eleven years without ever having been called to pass his
accounts, and without any instructions as to the investment of
moneys. On the trial of this case the court withdrew from the
jury the consideration of any other matters than those occurring
in 1859 and 1860. Appellee, however, makes no complaint
on this point. He was allowed interest on the amounts
due for those years, although no order of court had been made
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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 Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/221/: accessed May 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .