Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1897-05-03
DECISIONS
Made by the Supreme Court
FIagg & Cronise Win a Suit
Against Marion County.

ciic Railroad Company, from an order
of the circuit court of Benton county
denying the petition of certain en-
plOyes of the receivers of the company
for an order requiring the plaintiff in
the foreclosure suit in which such
receivers were appointed to pay the
wages of petitioners. The decree of
the lower court is affirmed. Opinion
by Bean j.
The supreme court acknowledges
this to be the first recorded instance
in the judicial history of railroad re-
ceiyerships in which the trust fund
was insufficient to pay the employees
OF the receiver operating the road;
hence there are no precede1ts in the
case,
A receiver, the opinion says, is not
like sheriff in an attachment action,
the agent of the plaintiff, and that
plrtieS to litigation have no control
over him. He is the agent Of the
court and th1 liabilities incurred by
him are the liabilities of the court,
"Raceiverships of railroad proper
ties" the court continues, "are pecu-
liar appointments. A receiver rep
resents no particular interest or class
OF interests. lie holds for the benefit
OF all who may ultimately show an in
terest in the property. He stands no
more for the creditor than the owners.
They are not assigneeS, and the prin-
cipleS of common law applicable to
asSignees do not define or determine
the character of receivers possession
or its effects upon the rights Of those
interested in their possession"
The mortgage, applying for the ap-
pointment Of a treceiver with author
ity to operate the road, is not respon-
sible, in the courts opinion, unless
made so as a condition of the appoint
ment, and without such condition the
receiver and employees must look to the
property in the courts custody for
compensation: nor are their wages
construed as costs of litigation in any
sense;
Flagg 81 Cronise, appellants, VS..
Marion County. respondent, for Ma
ri on county; opinion by Bean, j.; re-
Yerseu.
This was an action against Marion
county to recover balance of 1920,
alleged to be due the plaintiffs for
printing election ballots. A deinur-
rer to the complaint on the ground
that it did not state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action being
sustained, the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff contented that, while
a county clerk may, under the law
contract for the printing OF election
ballots, he has no authority to bind
the county by an agreement as to the
price to be paid therefore, and hence
his action should have been upon a
quantum meruit,and not for an agreed
compensation; and that plaintiffs
are estopped from maintaining this
action for the reason that they ac-
cepted from the county the sum or S4lO
the balance of the claim being rejected
ny Utle County COulO'
The county court held that con-
tracts of this character, made by pub
lie officers, when reasonable and valid
will support an action for an agreed
compensation. In regard to the mat
ter of plaintiffs being estopped, there
is not sufficient evidence to create a
presumption that the payment was
either made or accepted in full of the
claim.
M. L. Baker, respondent, VS.. State
Insurance Company, appellant, from
Multnomah county; opinion by VOL
yerton, j.; affirmed.
In Wyatt VS.. Harrisburg Mercantile
company it is held that, If a defend
ant denies the title of the plaintiff to
property sued for, he cannot after
wards set up the defense that he re-
tained the goods to secure his lien for
changes. HELD also that it was proper
for the court below to reject a ware
house receipt offered In evidence by
the warehouse man to prove the guam
UlOy VI OduS SUOIOu anu UiiS SSOANNN O'
where the WarehOus man denied the
title of plaintiff to the oats in ques-
tion.
Osman Royal, appellant, VS.. Ladru
Royal, respondent, from Multnomah
county; opinion by Bean j.; motion
allowed.
Mary Isabella Wason, respondent,
VS.. Robert Pllz, defendent, and Annie
c. Schmeer. appellant, from Multno-
nah county; modified opinion by VOL
verton,J.
Meyer g. Strom, respondent, VS.. ii.
e. Edwards, appellant, from Multno-
NAH county, opinion by Bean j.; re-
versal and remanded for further pro-
ceeding.
nonnv Ealonnio rasnOndanf VS f.