HINCKLEY
v.
GILMAN, CLINTON, AND SPRINGFIELD RAILROAD COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A railroad receiver appealed a judgment against him regarding settlement of his accounts in a foreclosure proceeding, and the Supreme Court held that although a receiver cannot appeal from the original foreclosure decree, he may appeal orders relating to his accounts once he becomes subject to the court's jurisdiction through those proceedings. The Court affirmed that a receiver, despite being a court officer, acquires the right to appeal final decrees concerning matters for which he has been made liable to the court's orders.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The motion to dismiss cannot be sustained.
In Blossom v. Railroad Company, 1 Wall. 655, a bidder at a foreclosure sale was allowed to appeal, and in delivering the opinion of the court Mr. Justice Miller said: —
• “ It is certainly true that he cannot' appeal from the original decree of foreclosure, nor from any other order or decree of the court made prior to his bid. It, however, seems to be well settled, that, after a decree adjudicating certain rights between the parties to a suit, other, persons having no previous interest in the • litigation may become connected with the case in the course of the subsequent proeeedings„iu such a manner as to subject them to the jurisdiction of the court, and render them liable to its orders; and that they may in like manner acquire rights in regard to the subject-matter of the litigation, which the court is bound to protect.” This seems to us to be decisive of this motion. The receiver cannot and does not attempt to appeal from the decree of foreclosure, or from any order or decree of the court, except such as relates to the settlement of his accounts. To that extent he has been subjected to the jurisdiction of the court, and made liable to its orders and decrees. He has, therefore, the corresponding right to contend against all claims made against him. For this purpose he occupies the position of a party to the suit, although an officer of the court, and after the final decree below has the right to his appeal here. In this case, the final decree has been given, and the case is properly here upon the.appeal as prayed and allowed. This will not keep any thing in litigation but the receiver’s accounts. The title to the property and the possession under the sale cannot be in any manner affected. Every thing can be closed up in the court below, in accordance with the decree which has been entered in the cause, except the distribution of the money claimed from the receiver. It will be time enough to consider whether more of the record has been brought here than is necessary to the hearing of the questions presented by the appeal when the cause is reached, or when application is made to us in that behalf.
Motion to dismiss denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Theo. Hirsch Co. v. Paul R. Scott for McDonald Furniture Co., 87 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1924)…the eases of Blossom v. Milwaukee Railroad, 1 Wall. 655, where a purchaser at a foreclosure sale was admitted to appeal; Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company, 2 Wall. 609, 634, to the same effect; Hinckley v. Gilman, Clinton & Springfield Railroad, 94 U. S. 467, where a receiver was allowed to appeal from a decree against him to pay a sum of money in the cause in which he was appointed receiver; Sage v. Railroad Company, 96 U. S. 712, where parties interested were allowed to appeal from an order confirming…
-
Whitaker v. Sparkman, 30 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1892)
-
Hovey & Another v. McDONALD & Another, 109 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1883)…apply to the subject. It will be found fully discussed in Blossom v. Milwaukee Railroad Company, 1 Wall. 655; Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U. S. 246; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527; and Hinckley v. Gilman, Clinton and Springfield Railroad Company, 94 U. S. 467. In the case last cited a decree was rendered against a receiver, direct-in'g him to. pay into court ,a certain sum of money, being the [*156] balance found due from him on the settlement of his accounts. He appealed from this decree, and his right…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201 (U.S. 1848)
- Blossom v. The Milwaukee, 1 Wall. 655 (U.S. 1863)
- Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 342 (U.S. 1868)
- Kitchen v. Randolph, 93 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1876)