Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Cal. 626

Quiggle v. Trumbo

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880

California Supreme Court · decided 1880-07-01

<p>Court Commissioner—Jurisdiction—Beceiver.—A court commissioner lias no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, and a bond given by a receiver so appointed is void.</p>

Relies on Stone v. Bunker Hill Copper, Gold, & Silver Mining Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1942

3 state decisions

101880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Myrick, J.:

¶1A court commissioner appointed by a District Court made an order appointing Trumbo a receiver in an action brought by one Paxton against Quiggle, plaintiff herein, and Dean and Wells, for the purpose of setting aside a sale made by Dean and Wells to Quiggle of certain personal property, on the ground of fraud. Trumbo executed a bond as receiver, and his co-defendants herein were his sureties on the bond. The plaintiff herein alleges, that the receiver took possession of the property; that the action against Quiggle and others was dismissed as to him, and that Trumbo subsequently delivered the property to Paxton.

¶2The defendants herein demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff failing to amend, judgment went for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.

¶3It appears to us that the appointment of the receiver by the court commissioner was void. The powers of a commissioner are specified in § 259 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He must rely upon the statute alone for his authority to act. (Stone v. B. H. M. Co. 28 Cal. 497.) According to § 564 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a receiver may be appointed by the Court or the judge thereof. We think that this section confines the power to appoint a receiver to the Court or the judge thereof. See §§ 566-569 of the Code of Civil Procedure; where the Court is to act regarding a receiver. It could not be contended, that, in all the matters referred to therein, a court commissioner could act, having implied authority so to do by § 259 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The effect of § 804 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to limit the power to appoint a receiver to the Court or judge.

¶4The complaint, counting as it does on an appointment made by a court commissioner, was defective; the bond was void; the demurrer should have been sustained.

¶5This case is not within § 963 of the Political Code. Here there is no official bond; there was no officer to give a bond.-

¶6Judgment affirmed.

¶7Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

/56/cal/626 · .json · Public domain