ALLEN v. Brown and Smith, Intervener and Appellant. (1956)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

M. ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. Mervin L. GARDNER and Continental Casualty Co., Defendants, Mervin L. Gardner, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, E. K. Ferguson, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of E. K. Ferguson, E. K. Ferguson, Jr., and Reed C. Ferguson, Copartners, doing business under the fictitious name and style of Ferguson Bros., a copartnership, Cross-Defendants and Respondents, George Finster, Receiver and Respondent, Brown and Smith, Intervener and Appellant.

Civ. 16782.

Decided: June 22, 1956

Brown & Smith, Jacqueline Taber, Oakland, for appellant. Royal A. Stewart, Richard W. Horton, Reno, Arguello & Giometti, San Francisco, for respondent Mervin L. Gardner. Eugene K. Lawlor, Oakland, for respondent E. K. Ferguson, Jr. Alden Ames, Redwood City, for respondent George Finster.

This appeal by intervener, appellant in propria persona, is from an order of the superior court ‘Memorandum Decision Order of Court Amending Original Order Appointing Receiver’ dated February 3, 1955, and signed March 2, 1955, modifying a previous order instructing the receiver appointed to take possession of the property of cross-defendants to satisfy a judgment, see Allen v. Gardner, 126 Cal.App.2d 335, 272 P.2d 99, in favor of cross-complainant and claims of other creditors of cross-defendants.

The grounds of the appeal are that the modifying order improperly established priorities as between the judgment creditor (claimed by appellant to be a creditor only of the individual partners and not of the partnership) and creditors of the partnership.

At the oral argument, the parties stipulated that said modifying order does not establish priorities of any kind and that the question of priorities is still to be determined by the superior court, including the question of whether or not said judgment is on an equality with, ahead of, or behind, the claims of any other creditors. Pursuant to said stipulation, said order is hereby interpreted as above expressed.

The order is affirmed. In the interests of justice, under Rule i6(a), Rules on Appeal, each party shall bear its own costs.

BRAY, Justice.

PETERS, P. J., and FRED B. WOOD, J., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network