Shannon v. Hanks

• Decision Date: 23 June 1891
• Parties: Shannon et al. v. Hanks.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

13 S.E. 437

88 Va. 338

Shannon et al.

v.Hanks.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 23, 1891.

Appointment op Receiver—Right to Appeal— Discretion op Court.

1. Code Va. § 3454, provides that an appeal may be allowed in any case in chancery wherein there is a decree or order requiring the possession of the property to be changed. Held, that a decree of the circuit court in equity, appointing a receiver, is appealable.

2. After a decree in an action to subject property fraudulently conveyed, a receiver may be appointed, though not prayed in the bill, where the circumstances justify it.

3. The fact appearing from the commissioner's report that, independent of the land sought to be subjected, the annual value of defendant's real estate is only about $200, and the liens thereon amount to about $20,000, justifies the appointment of a receiver.

4. Where the court appointed two receivers, the mere fact that one of them was attorney for complainant will not be deemed an abuse of discretion, where the other was attorney for defendant.

Appeal from circuit court, Bland county; D. W. Bolen, Judge.

Bill in equity by one Hanks against Samuel B. Shannon and others to subject certain property. Decree for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Mr. Harnian, for appellants.

Williams Bros, and Mr. Pierce, for appellee.

Lewis, P. This was a suit in equity in the circuit court of Giles county by the appellee, Hanks, against Samuel B.Shannon and others, to subject the real estate of the defendant Shannon to the satisfaction of two judgments recovered by the plaintiff against the firm of Compton & Shannon, of which firm the defendant Shannon was a member. The real estate sought to be subjected consisted of several tracts of land situate in Giles county, one of which was conveyed by the defendant, prior to the recovery of the plaintiff's judgments, to Isaac Hudson, trustee, for the benefit of Alice R. Gish, in consideration of her intended marriage with the defendant, which marriage was soon after solemnized. It appears from the commissioner's report that, independent of the land conveyed to Hudson, trustee, for the benefit of Mrs. Shannon, which is not involved in this appeal, the annual value of the defendant's real estate is only $200, whereas the liens thereupon amount in the aggregate to about $20,000. Upon the coming in of the commissioner's amended report the plaintiff moved for the appointment of a receiver, which motion was granted by the decree complained of. The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently allowed, on the ground that an appeal will not lie from a decree appointing a receiver. But we are of opinion that this objection cannot be sustained. An order appointing a receiver in a ease like this changes the possession as well as the control of the property, and is therefore embraced within the provision of section 3454 of the Code, which enacts expressly that an appeal may be allowed in any case in chancery wherein there is a decree or order requiring the possession of the property to be changed. And so it was decided in Smith v Butcher, 28 Grat. 144, in which case it was held that an order appointing a receiver is an appealable order, although made in vacation. The same case is also an authority for the action of the circuit court in appointing a receiver in the present case, although there is no specific prayer for a receiver in the bill. The general...