Case ID: wash_144/html/0070-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20580.
    Department One.
    June 3, 1927.]
    J. R. McClellan, Plaintiff, v. Percy W. Bull, Defendant, F. C. Carr, as Receiver, Appellant, Eugene Cunningham, Respondent. 
      
    
    
       Receivers (36) — Titee and Possession of Property — Adverse Claim of Lessor. A receiver of an insolvent mill owner is not entitled to the possession of a motor furnished under a lease entitling the lessor to retake possession on default.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Wright, J., entered January 19,1927, upon findings in favor of the defendant in receivership proceedings, tried to the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      P. C. Kibbe and Cleland & Clifford, for appellant.
    
      8. F. McAnally, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 256 Pac. 780.
    
   Per Curiam.

This litigation involves the right to the possession of a motor claimed by the appellant as receiver of an insolvent mill owner and by the respondent, who furnished the machine to the mill.

There are several reasons why the claim of the receiver should be disallowed, but it is only necessary to notice one, and that is that the motor was installed in the mill under a lease and by virtue thereof the respondent, as lessor, was entitled to retake possession as he did upon the default of the lessee.

The trial court having decided in favor of the right of the lessor to retake possession, that decision is affirmed for the reason that the testimony in the case establishes beyond question that the relationship between the mill owner and the respondent was that of lessee and lessor.

Affirmed.