Oakes v. Lake
290 U.S. 59 (1933)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Oakes v. Lake, 290 U.S. 59 (1933)

Oakes v. Lake

No. 5

Argued October 11, 1933

Decided November 6, 1933

290 U.S. 59

Syllabus

1. A state court receiver who, as such, had taken possession of personal property (cattle) afterwards found in another state in possession of another, is entitled to sue for repossession in that state, without an ancillary appointment. P. 290 U. S. 61.

2. The principle upon which the receiver may do this is one of law, and not of comity. P. 290 U. S. 63.

3. Assuming, but not deciding, that, in a suit in a federal court in Idaho under the so-called claim and delivery statute of that state, property held by a sheriff under process issued by a state court cannot be repossessed, nevertheless the value of the property and damages may be recovered. P. 290 U. S. 64.

2 F.2d 728 reversed.

Certiorari, 289 U.S. 717, to review a judgment affirming a judgment of nonsuit in an action brought in the District Court by a foreign receiver under the Idaho claim and delivery statute.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.