CADLE
v.
BAKER
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
We think such averments as the defendant alleges to be necessary and the want of which he has assigned for cause of demurrer, were not necessary. The debtors of a bank, when sued by a receiver, cannot inquire into the legality of his appointment. It is sufficient for the purposes of such a suit that he has been appointed and is receiver in fact.' As to debtors, the action of «the - comptroller in making the appointment is conclusive until set aside on the application of the bank. The bank may move in that behalf, but the debtor cannot. Section fifty makes express provision for a contest by the bank.
The court below erred in sustáining the demurrer, and for that reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to overrule .the demurrer to the declaration and
Proceed accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tervin v. H. Osborn v. State, 116 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1934)…t appears to be well settled that when the court appointing a Receiver has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties its order appointing a Receiver, no matter how erroneous, can not be reached by a collateral attack. See Cadel v. Baker, 20 Wall 650, 22 Law Ed. 448; Commercial National Bank v. Burch, 141 Ill. 519, 31 N. E. 420, 33 Am. St. Rep. 331; Whitney v. Hanover National Bank, 71 Miss. 1009, 15 Sou. 33; Texas [*640] etc. R. R. Co. v. Gray, 86 Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52. Theref…
-
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1875)…t it. Its validity is not to be questioned in the litigation that may ensue. He may make it at such time as he may deem proper, and upon such data as shall be satisfactory to him.” This principle was applied also in Cadle, Receiver, v. Baker & Co., 20 Wall. 650. It was competent for the court to order payment of the stock, as the directors under the instruction of a majority of the stock [*60] holders might, before the decree in bankruptcy, have done.. The former is as effectual as the latter would have b…
-
Grant v. A. B. Leach & Co., 280 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1930)…rt, which admitted the allegation that Grant had been “ duly appointed ” receiver of all the Company’s property. And plainly the validity of the appointment could not have been questioned by a collateral attack in another court. See. Cadle v. Baker, 20 Wall. 650, 651; Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, 178; [*360] Lively v. Picton (C. C. A.) 218 Fed. 401, 406; Lydick v. Neville (C. C. A.) 287 Fed. 479, 482; Olmstead v. Distilling Co., (C. C.) 73 Fed. 44, 48; Shinney v. North American Co. (C. C.) 97 Fed. 9…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence