Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 F.2d 424

Docket No. 9154.

Briegel v. Payne

District of Columbia District Court

Argued April 4, 1946.

Decided May 27, 1946.

District of Columbia District Court · decided 1946-05-27

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1994

1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on Creel v. Creel

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1946-05-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. O. R. McGuire, of Washington, D. C. , for appellant.

¶2Mr. Alfred L. Bennett, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Hugh C. Bick-ford and L. Kenneth Swiger, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellee sued appellant for dissolution of an alleged partnership or joint adventure, an accounting, and appointment of a receiver. The District Court found that as to certain contracts obtained before August 19, 1943, appellant and appellee had been engaged in a joint adventure. The court directed its auditor to determine the amount of appellee’s one-half share in the profits. Afterwards, on November 5, 1945, the court appointed appellee’s counsel as receiver to take possession of the joint funds and hold them until further order of the court. This appeal is from the order of November 5. Appointment of 'a receiver was within the court’s discretion. Creel v. Creel, 63 App. D.C. 384, 73 F.2d 107. It is immaterial that the Creel case involved partners while this case involves joint adventurers. Appellant interprets the order of November 5 as including funds arising from contracts obtained after August 18, 1943, but this interpretation is erroneous.

¶6Affirmed.

/155/f2d/424 · .json · Public domain