The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-19
OPINIONS FILED
BY SUPREME COURT
Receivers Permissible
For Estates.
ARGUMENTYESTERDAY
Iones VS.. Warehouse Co. On Rehear-
inq--New Trial in Hughes VS..
Knott and Williamson-.-Dennis
Biggs Lumber Co. Case
Argued Today.
ARGU MENT.YESTERDAY

enc, that of Fisher VS. Fisher, hay
ing any general interest.
The Fisher case came from Greens
boro and is of moment in that it de-
fines the policy which will govern
State courts III the matter of the issu-
ance of Receivers certificates, prac-
tice that has been productive OF mucf
waste and scandal N Federal jurisdic-
tons: and also in that it endorses the
new practice in North Carolina of the
appointment of a receiver to take
charge of an estate in lieu of an ad
miniStrator.
The owner of the estate in litigation
was the late Il. f. Fisher, originally
of England, but for many years iden-
titled with Greensboro. His proper
ty is variously estimated to be worth
from one to two hundred Thousand
dollars After his death, his wife, who
was administrator, made a motion To
be relieved and asked that the estate
be put into the hands of a receiver
This was allowed by the court and Mr.
A. l.. Brooks named as receiver OF the
property. Immediately upon his quail
ification, he issued receivers certiti-
Gates to a considerable amount for
various purposes, the issuance OF
which was for the purpose of winding
'whic hwas for the purpose of winding
up the estate and brought by Mrs.
Fisher against the children and other
creditors of the estate. The Southern
Loan and Trust Company, which held
a power of attorney from Mr.. Fisher.
was also party to the suit
In the opinion filed yesterday the
Supreme Court held, substantially four
points as follows:
First. That while it is unusual to
appoint d receiver to manage an estate
!. IT,. TO-. nj
Of Equity may properly allow such
appointment.
Second. That the power of attor-
ney executed by Mr.. Fisher to the
Southern Loan and Trust Company
terminated at his death.
Third That all expenses and SER
vices rendered by the agent under the
power of the attorney are charge
against the estate.
Fourth That the court ought not
10 have authorized the receiver to is
sue certificates; that the practice is
one to be condemned; and that the re-
ceiver should follow the law as to eX-
ecutors and administrators. The court
particularly criticized the issuance OF
the certificate for $500 to the widow
and gave to the creditors of the estate
the authority to make a motion to can
eel the authority of the receiver to is
sue the certificates and for the can
collation. of those already issued.
The receiver of the property, Mr.. a
l.. Brooks, of Greensboro, appeared IL
the litigation, as attorney. as did Mr.
j. Fl. Pou of Raleigh, on behalf of tlit
Southern Trust Company and others.
The costs in the case were divided
equally between the parties.
Failed on Mental Anguish.
The mental anguish case of n. P
and M. c. Crawford, husband and wife
against the Western Union Telegraph
Company, which was argued last week
was decided in favor of the company
1t appears that the telegram was sem
from China Grove TO Lexington to N
r. Crawford, the father of Mrs. Llid
wick, whose child had died, informing
him of the death and the time for tho
funeral. The telegram was sent the
afternoon of one day and delivered the
next morning, n. p. Crawford catch
ing a train in time to attend the fun
eral. The claim of his wife WAS tina
she did not receive the message in time
to make necessary arrangements witt
regard to having her children taker
care of and so could not attend the
funeral. The court held that there
was nothing in the telegram itself anc
no proof of any intimation to the COM
pany that Mrs. Crawford could have
any interest in the matter and there
fore her action could not be maintain
ed. intimating also that even had the
telegram been addressed to her, sui
could not nave been based on the fac
that while she had time to leave, sh,
did not leave on account of domestic
difficulties in the way of her departure
New Trial i'm Hughes V. Knott.
The case of Hughes VS.. Knott anC
Williamson, of interest to Raleigh neo
pie. was decided in favor of the ap
pellant defendants, and a new trial or.
dered. This case involved contrac
for the sale of certain tobacco by {
certain time. 1t was i'm issue on tn;
trial in the Superior Court whether tn.
plaintiff had been allowed the priv
lege of waiting a day or SO after The
time limited in the contract to max.
payment. The case was decided in the
favor of the plaintiff however upon {
ruling of the court below that sine;
the contract declared that the tobacco
should be placed f. o. b. cars at Raj
eigh and had not been SO placed. thu
plaintiffs time in which to make pay
ment held over awaiting the perform
ance of that condition. The Supreme
Court, however. held that since tn,
contract had failed TO specify the rout,
should be shipped, there was error il
that ruling, it being the dut- of tn,
purchaser to designate the route O
road by or to which he desired tn
goods shipped.
Other Opinions Filed.
Other opinions handed down, non
of which are of special interest, wer
as follows:
Shields VS.. Bank. from Gulford
new trial in plaintiffs appeal and af
Grmed in defendants appeal, resultin
in decision for the plaintiff. Yves
V. Grocery Co., from Guiiford; error
Railroad Co. V. Hardware Co., fror
Guilford; affirmed. Greensboro
Scott from Guilford; no error. Ken
nedy v. Price, from Davie; no error
Couple v. Commissioners. from Davie
affirmed Hendrix " Cotton Mill
from Davie, new trial. Foil V. New
some from Rowan. two cases; decide
in favor of defendants. Murdoch
Commissioners, from Iredell; reverse
and proceeding dismissed. Clement