320 



IlT-RF.rEIVKns. 



born mt Cham, Bavaria. Nov. 10, 1*34. Ho WM ed- 

 ucated it Munich, and in isr,;; waa made professor 

 extraordinary and assistnnt in tin- ll,.\ .il Mint-Cabinet. 

 In 1860 he became professor of art-history and aes- 

 thetics in the PotytMnnio School at Munich. In 1875 

 the charge of the lloval Galleries was also committed 

 to him. He has published Die Kiiinm Romt // /; 

 ('imimgna (ISM); Gacltichtr tier Baukiinst t/r* 

 Altrrthitm* (1866); Kitnftgnchi'chle dr* Altrrthunu 

 (1ST I), which has boon translated into English as the 

 Ilittnni of Ancient Art (1886) -.Gochichie der nrnrrn 

 dfHtuchrn K'tnit (1876) ; and Kunstgetchiditf </. Mil- 

 telilttrt (1886). Keber's works are characterized by a 

 comprehensive sympathy with art in all its develop- 



RECEIPT in law. us in common language, denotes a 

 written acknowledgment ot payment of money or deliv- 

 ery of chattels. It is executed by the person to whom 

 payment or delivery is made. The receipt of one per- 

 son is, as a general thing, inoperative against another. 

 It must acknowledge the payment or delivery, must be 

 delivered to the debtor, and must be in writing : a. 

 memorandum of payment made by the creditor in lus 

 own books has been held not to be a receipt. The 

 acknowledgment of payment is presumptive evidence 

 merely, and is not regarded as binding or conclusive. 

 For instance, it may be shown that it was obtained by 

 fraud, or given under a mistake, or that in fact no 

 money was paid as stated. A receipt acknowledging 

 payment " in full " of a specified debt or " of all ac- 

 counts" or "of all demands" is of a much higher 

 and more conclusive nature. It has been held that an 

 adjustment of the amount due, and a payment of the 

 speeified sum as a final satisfaction, may be inferred 

 f roui such an acknowledgment Generally speaking, 

 a receipt "in full " is conclusive when the party giving 

 it cannot complain of any misapprehension or fraud 

 with regard to the compromise he was making. Evi- 

 dence of misrepresentation or fraud in explanation of 

 such a receipt must be clear and full and to the effect 

 that there was not in fact an intended and valid com- 

 promise of the demand. 



A receipt given under seal, as a general rule, cannot 

 be contradicted. There is an exception to this rule, 

 however, in the case of a receipt for the consideration 

 money, frequently inserted in a deed of real estate. It 

 has been generally held that for the purpo.se of sus- 

 taining the conveyance as against the vendor and those 

 claiming under him, the receipt is conclusive : they 

 are estopped to deny that a consideration was paid HH- 

 ficient to sustain the conveyance : but in an action for 

 the purchase-money or upon anv collateral demand, e. 

 g., to recover a debt paid by the conveyance, or for 

 damages for breach of covenant in the deed, etc., the 

 grantor may show that the consideration was not paid or 

 that an additional consideration was agreed upon, etc. 

 A receipt in a deed may also be contradicted or ex- 

 plained on the ground of fraud. 



It has been generally held that a receipt embodying 

 a contract is not open to explanation or contradiction 

 as in the case of a simple receipt. For example, a re- 

 ceipt containing an agreement as to the application of 

 the money paid cannot be contradicted by parol evi- 

 dence inconsistent therewith. The receipt for the 

 goods in a bill of lading, however, may be explained. 



(T. R.) 



RECEIVERS are assignees of insolvent corpora- 

 tions acting under special direction! from a court, and, 

 therefore, not strictly within the laws of bankruptcy. 

 The practice of appointing receivers grew out of I lu- 

 ll. S. Bankrupt LAWS, which were enacted soon alter 

 the civil war and held for about 15 years. In the sev- 

 eral States the laws relating to bankruptcy differed 

 materially, and in many of them the practice of ap- 

 pointing receivers has obtained. The Suite of N>-w 

 York u> taken as a leading example of the whole. IV - 

 rioiis to 1882 it was not uncommon for savings banks 

 and life-insurance companies suddenly to become insol- 



vent, and the expens. - them were I 



continued and so large tin! wi ln-,\- air! niin-i who 

 could least afford it were deprived of their nn 

 support The abuse of trusts cit' that nature Uvame 

 so marked that file. Jx-gislaturc of IS*-, through its 

 commit ters on insurance, made 11 (strict in\ 

 linn of insurance companies which had !!. 

 within the previous live years. Strict inquiries were 

 made of the insurance department in regard to every 

 insolvent company as a basis of conimem'inir the work. 

 The first law that compelled receivers to report directly 

 to the insurance department (parsed in I MM) required 

 the trustees and receivers of Mich companies, not only 

 to make annual statements of tin ir income, etc., but 

 also such other statements as the superintendent of the 

 insurance department might require. Another law, 

 in 1869, extended these provisions to registered policies 

 of life-insurance, and it also provided that the eom|>on- 

 sation of the receiver should be fixed by the superin- 

 tendent, and should not exceed 5 per cent of the total 

 amount of the assets of such company as should come 

 into his possession. In 1ST.! it was declared that the 

 Supreme Court might apjmint a receiver of a fire-in- 

 surance company whenever any stockholder had mado 

 a formal complaint to the superintendent, and that 

 complaint had been neglected for 10 days. In IS-'O 

 a law was passed requirm;: receivers to file duplicate 

 copies of their reports with the attorney-general or 

 else, such receivers might bo removed. It was also re- 

 quired that receivers of banking corporations must file 

 duplicates of their reports with the. banking depart- 

 ment. Early in the investigation of the, Assembly 

 Committee it was discovered that the receiver of a sav- 

 ings bank had been paid over $50,000 for his I 

 in four vears. and that the receivers of insurance com- 

 panies hail sihsorbed an aL'irri^'ale of 7l!.~>.n : 

 those of savings banks SI.OiMi.ooO. Of the _>:> broken 

 banks 18. and of the. insurance companies 14. were 

 still in the hands of receivers. An application had 

 been made to dissolve the corporation of a leading ele- 

 vated railroad in New York city ; the suit had been 

 discontinued and another suit admitting the legality of 

 the company and declaring its insolvency had been 

 commenced closely followed by the appointment of 

 receivers. The Committee of the Assembly examined 

 13 life-insurance companies one of which may be 

 taken as a specimen of all._ This company had ab- 

 sorbed four smaller corporations. In this pnxv 

 only had I lie assets of the policy holders been trans- 

 ferred, but even the. rights of the policy-holders had 

 become so confused as to offer but little show of exist- 

 ence. The receiver was supposed t<; V capable of per- 

 forming the duties for which he was so largely paid; 

 Inn his fust act was to appoint a "practical man, 

 also at a large salary, to do his work. In defiance of 

 the law which provided that nothing should be drawn 

 out for expenses without an order of the court, this 

 receiver, like most others, drew on the collected fund 

 on his own order. Suits were begun or compromised 

 by him at his own discretion ; and the ex per 

 winding up the 5 companies had asrurcgated $175, 0(X) 

 in 5 years with no prospect of a liiml settlement. In 

 summing up its report the committee declared that 

 only one of the 13 companies had been managed by 

 the receiver on business principles ; that rc< 

 appointed one alter the other no one appearing to 

 wish the job completed ; that the same attorn. 

 quently appeared as counsel for different insolvent 

 companies. " Intervetiers " had sprung up to de- 

 fend the rights of policy holders, while no such de- 

 fenders were necessary, because no application could 

 he made to the court by the. receiver except upon five, 

 days' notice lo the attorney general ; and that these in- 

 terveners, while outwardly dcfendinij the' policy-hold- 

 ers, were actually in collusion with the receiver and hit 

 schemes to grasp more money. 



The abuses of receiverships having thus been fully 

 shown, the Legislature of 1883 passed a law providing 



