Case Name: Emma Womach et al. Respondents, v. Amanda Sandygren et al., Appellants, Sprague Rochdale Store Company et al., Interveners
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1917-01-13
Citations: 94 Wash. 256
Docket Number: No. 13595
Parties: Emma Womach et al. Respondents, v. Amanda Sandygren et al., Appellants, Sprague Rochdale Store Company et al., Interveners.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
[No. 13595.
Department One.
January 13, 1917.]
Emma Womach et al. Respondents, v. Amanda Sandygren et al., Appellants, Sprague Rochdale Store Company et al., Interveners.
Receivers — Appointment—Crops. A prima facie case for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite is made out, where a cotenant was endeavoring to take charge of certain crops lying in the field at the mercy of the elements, and refused to make any statement or account for the same.
Appeal — Review—Discretion. The appointment of a receiver pendente lite on a prima facie showing will not he disturbed on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion.
Appeal from an order of the superior court for Lincoln county, Sessions, J., entered March 21, 1916, appointing a receiver pending an action for partition.
Affirmed.
Martin <Sf Jesseph, for appellants.
Reported in 162 Pac. 354.

Opinion:
Webster, J. —
Pending an action for partition of lands among tenants in common, respondents moved for the ap pointment of a receiver pendente lite, and filed in support of the motion an affidavit showing, in substance, that a part of the land was in cultivation and that it was necessary that the same be put in crop for the ensuing season; that certain crops grown during the year 1915 were lying in the field where cut, at the mercy of the elements; that Amanda Sandygren, one of the cotenants, was endeavoring to take charge of the crops and refused to make any statement of the amount of grain grown or to account for same. Amanda Sandygren filed a counter affidavit, in effect denying the affidavit of respondents. On the showing so made, a receiver was appointed to take charge of all crops sown and grown on the premises and to safely keep the same until the final determination of the action.
The affidavit in support of the motion presents a prima ;facie case for the appointment- of a receiver and, upon the record before us, we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in the premises.
Affirmed.
•Ellis, C. J., Mourns, Main, and Chadwick, JJ., concur.