Opinion ID: 2081489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: One of defendant's assignments of error states:

Text: The Court erred in holding, in effect, that a Petition of Intervention may properly be filed and urged in a case in which the plaintiff's petition must fall, as shown by the face of the pleadings. This is based upon the premise that the delivery by defendant of the draft for $25,714.67 to the Clerk of the District Court, as above stated, satisfied the part of the judgment against Reisinger for which recovery by plaintiff from defendant might have been secured under Chapter 516 of the Code, I.C.A., and left plaintiff no right of recovery. We have already pointed out that this premise is not well founded. Hence, there is no factual basis for this assignment of error. This conclusion should not be interpreted as intimating it is correct from a legal standpoint. V. Defendant contends the receiver had no right to intervene in the action commenced by the judgment creditor and had no right to litigate and attempt to reduce to judgment various choses in action for damages on behalf of the judgment debtor. Error is assigned to the order of the trial court overruling these contentions. We hold the order was not erroneous. The receiver for Reisinger's property was appointed by the court under the provisions of Code section 630.7, I.C.A. The report of the receiver indicated that Reisinger's claim against defendant insurer was his only asset out of which a substantial amount might be realized. The court authorized and directed the receiver to intervene in the action brought by Wellman against the insurer (see R.C.P. 75, 58 I.C.A.) or to institute an independent action. We are satisfied this was a proper case for intervention and that the order was correct. As stated in 39 Am.Jur., Parties, section 57: Courts look with favor upon intervention in proper cases. It is a convenient and appropriate method of settling in one action controversies relating to the same matter,   . In re Town of Waconia, 248 Iowa 863, 82 N.W.2d 762, 765, states: Intervention is remedial and should be liberally construed to the end that litigation may be reduced and more expeditiously determined. Of course, the assets of the debtor, taken over by the receiver, are held by him as an officer of the court for those eventually proven entitled to them. 75 C.J.S. Receivers § 103. The orders of the trial court appealed from are affirmed. The costs upon appeal are ordered taxed one half to intervenor and one half to defendant. Affirmed on both appeals.