The Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1903-1909, 1909-11-27
HOME IDAHO SATURDAY NOVEMBER

~fF~sAAS'e "a - A~~SA'SA w
tween partners or others joint
ly interested in any property, or
fund, or the proceeds thereof,
is provable, and where it is
shown that the property orfund
is in danger of being lost, re
moved or materially injured.
The appellant has not been in
possession of this property for
at least three years, has per-
mitted the same to be operated
by the Beet Sugar Company,
now an insolvent corporation,
has taken no steps to repair the
property, which it is admitted
is in bad condition and insult
able to do duty as an irrigation
system, has not complied with
the laws of this state as re-
quired of foreign corporations,
and the existancs of these facts
and the fact that the plaintiff
claims to have acquired an in
terest in the property Of the ap-
pellant, we think fully author
lied and empowered the trial
court to exercise the judicial
discretion vested in it to appoint
a receiver for the preservation
of the property in litigation,
pending such litigation.
The appellant admits that it's
canals And bitches are partially
filled with sand and gravel, but
alleges that it is only to the ex-
tent usual after a years use and
such as customary in all irriga-
tion systems; and alleges that
it is ready, able and willing to
clean out said canals and
bitches and to put the same in
shape for the proper distribu-
tion oil its water prior to the ir-
rigation season of 1909, and
that plaintiff has no interest,
legal or equitable, in its proper
ty.
While this answer is made,
yet there was no evidence be-
fore the trial judge showing
the good intentions on the part
of the appellant to perform the
acts alleged in It's answer. 1t
may have been ready, able and
willing to put the system il
condition to be used, and yet
not have done so. In fact, one
of the first steps In our opin-
ion, which would have tended
to show it's good faith, would
have been a compliance with
the laws of this state in appoint
ing an agent and qualifying un-
der the law, so as to entitle it
as a foreign corporation to do
business in this state; and with
out some act on its part, NOV
ing in the direction of put ing
its irrigation system in a condi-
tion to protect the rights of the
plaintiff, we believe the court
was perfectly justified and had
full jurisdiction to take charge
of such property pending the
trial Of the interest which
plaintiff claims to have acquired
in such property, and in ap-
pointing a receiver to preserve
and care for such property.
At the hearing for the ap-
pointment of a receiver, the
appellant offered and asked the
trial judge to consider its an
swer filed in said cause. This
was denied by the trial judge
and this is assigned an error.
We think the trial court should
have considered this answer.
The appellant had a right to
file It's answer and defend its
property, even though it had
not complied with the laws of
this state as a foreign corpora
tion. This fact did not deny it
the right to protest its title and
right of possession; as against
the claim of plaintiff, to have
acquired an interest therein.
War Eagle consolidated Min.
Co. v. Dickie, Ia Ida. 534.
The failure, however, Of the
trial court to consider the an,
swer of the appellant co lid
have made no difference in the
power or jurisdiction of the
Judge to appoint such receiver.
Even though such answer be
considered. still the record, in
4