Meyer v. Kalkmann

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.</p> <p>On April 14th, 1856, the plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging a co-partnership between himself and defendant, under the firm name of P. Kalkmann & Co., and that defendant had been guilty of misconduct in the management of the partnership affairs, and that he was insolvent individually, and as a member of the firm. The bill prays for an account and distribution and the appointment of a receiver. On the same day an order was entered appointing James Bell receiver, and his bonds were approved and filed early in the same day. Meyer and Kalkmann as well as Bell, telegraphed to Sacramento, where the firm of P. Kalkmann & Co. had a store, informing the clerk of the firm of the appointment of the receiver, and instructing him to close the store and hold the goods for the receiver. After the clerk had received the message and had partially closed the store and commenced to reduce the property into possession, attachments were issued against the firm by various creditors, in actions commenced in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, under which William S. White, the sheriff of Sacramento County, entered the store and seized the entire stock of goods of P. Kalkmann & Co., in Sacramento City.</p> <p>On the following day Bell, the receiver, made formal demand for the goods upon Sheriff White, who refused to deliver them; whereupon Bell obtained an order in the Court below requiring White to show cause why he should not be committed for taking the property out of the custody of the receiver, and why he should not deliver the same over to the receiver. White appeared under the rule, and protesting against the jurisdiction of the Court, presented counter affidavits to those of the receiver. The question was argued, and the Court made the rule absolute that White should deliver the goods to the receiver within two days. White appealed.</p>