Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-01-25
RECEIVERS PERSONALLY LIABLE.
Important Decision in Fort Madison
Case

Des Moines, Jan. 22.-An interesting
case was decided by a divided SUI.
kpreme court Saturday morning which
came up on appeal from the dis.
trict court of Lee county, Hon. Henry
Banle, judge, and in which the majority
opinion, written by Deemer, reverses
the lower tribunal and makes vigor.
Gus statement of the general principles
OF law touching upon the liability OF
receivers as executors of promissory
notes in their official capacity. Suit
was brought at law on promissory
notes signed James Hickey, receiver
Defendant admitted signing the notes
but pleaded that he executed them as
receiver with knowledge of plaintiff.
He also pleaded mutual mistake and
asked that the contracts be reformed
SO as to show that he executed as re
ceiver and not in his individual capac-
ity; that he had authority from the
court appointing him to make the con
tracts and that plaintiff accepted them
as obligations of the receiver and was
fully aware that they were intended to
be. executed in representative capac-
ity. The case was transferred to the
equity docket and the court entered an
order finding mistake, order reforma-
ton and adjudgings that defendant is
not personally liable.
Thelsupreme courtupon an examina-
ton Of the record finds that the superb
orscourt of the city of Keokuk appoint
edidefendanti as receiver OF a stock OF
granite and marble owned by one John
L. Crotty, and in the order appoint
ing him directed that he dispose of the
same subject to the usual orders of
the court. The order was entered on
February %, 1898, and the notes were
not executed until the fall Of the wear
1897. At the time the notes were exc
cuted the necessity for the receiver
ship had practically ceased, but de-
PENDANT still continued to act in that
capacity and made the notes for goods
sold and delivered by the plaintiff.
Had defendant authority to make the
notes as receiyer?ilAs receiver he had
nossuch authority. General authority
to be an agent to transact business
does not invest him with power to
make his principal party to negotia-
bic paper. That the parties intended
to make binding contracts there can be
no doubt. To hold the defendant in
ASoHoASSlD1O 10 " IOllOW
the lawaas it is written, and the result
is one that they are conclusively pre-
sumed to have apprehended. Defend
ant may charge the funds for the
amount received against him if the
contracts were OF benefit to the state or
funds in his hands. If he had distri-
buted the funds without taking into ac-
count the notes in suit it is mistake
from which the law will not relieve
him. Plaintiff should have Judgment
for the amount of the notes in suit, and
the lower court is reversed.
"A dissenting opinion is filed by Civ
en-, justice, who states that he believes
that the conclusion of the majority,
based upon the finding that the de-
PENDANT had no authority to execute
notes as receiver to be an erroneous
one. While receiver acts in repre-
sentative capacity, he does SO in diff
ferent sense from that of agents. He
is an officer of the court and does not
act for principal in the sense that
agents do, but for the court, the credi-
tors and the debtor; therefore, the
rules are not applicable.