Court Opinion

ID: 9834609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 01:15:51.424184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:36.603052
License: Public Domain

Upon Applioation por Rehearing :
Appellant, in his petition for a rehearing, says that the decree complained of, requiring him to pay over all but 5% of the money coming into his hands without an independent investigation after notice to him, violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions. There is no claim that he had not received the amount of money he was required to account for, and the rate of his commission was the only matter to be determined. In answering the same question in Crawford v. Fickey, 41 W. Va. 544, 23 S. E. 662, *653tbis court, speaking tbrongb Judge Brannon, said: “But tbe point is made by counsel that the receiver was no-party to the suit in which the decree against him was made, and no notice was given him, and it is void as to him. He is the officer of the court. Must he have notice! before any order can be made requiring him to pay? Of course, courts should be careful, before decreeing him to pay fixed amounts, to see that they are in his hands. But he is always before the court.” We must, therefore, conclude that the point is without merit.