Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Gostlin

• Decision Date: 24 February 1903
• Citation: 66 N.E. 514,30 Ind.App. 504
• Parties: CHICAGO HORSESHOE CO. v. GOSTLIN et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

30 Ind.App. 504

66 N.E. 514

CHICAGO HORSESHOE CO.

v.GOSTLIN et al.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Feb. 24, 1903.

Appeal from circuit court, Lake county; Jno.H. Gillette, Judge.

Cause between the Chicago Horseshoe Company and William H. Gostlin, receiver, and others.The horseshoe company appeals.Affirmed.

W. S. Oppenheim and Johannes Kopelke, for appellant.C. F. Griffin and L. L. Bomberger, for appellees.

BLACK, P. J.

The transcript, filed in this courtDecember 30, 1901, to which the assignment of errors is annexed, consists of two separate transcripts attached together.The first, marked “Exhibit A,” is a transcript for appeal to the Supreme Court in a suit wherein George H. Lewis, receiver of the Chicago Horseshoe Company of Illinois, was the plaintiff, and the Chicago Horseshoe Company of Indiana was the defendant; the prayer of the complaint therein being for judgment for $5,000 and the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the property and assets of the defendant.That transcript contains an order of the court appointing William H. Gostlin as receiver, September 24, 1898, but does not show any final judgment in the cause, the appeal being from the order of appointment of the receiver, the clerk's certificate, dated October 1, 1898, showing the transcript to be a copy of papers and entries in a cause then pending in the court below.We are told by counsel in their briefs that this was the transcript on appeal to the Supreme Court in the case of Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Lewis, Receiver, 156 Ind. 232, 59 N. E. 466, in which the appeal was from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver of the appellant corporation.The Supreme Court, holding that the record contained nothing but a moot question, dismissed the appeal.

The second transcript above referred to was certified by the clerk, December 28, 1901, to contain copies of all papers and entries in the same cause “lately pending in said court, entered and filed therein subsequent to the 1st day of October, A.D. 1898, as fully as the same now appear of record and on file in” his office.In the same certificate the clerk certified that said papers and entries, together with the papers and entries set forth in the other transcript, above mentioned, referred to by the clerk as being “herewith filed and made part of this transcript as ‘Exhibit A,”’ constitute full, true, and complete copies of all the entries and papers in said cause.The second transcript shows that October 2, 1901, the cause was reinstated upon the docket, and that the receiver then filed his final report as such; that afterward the defendant filed its exceptions to the receiver's final report; that the report was submitted to the court for hearing, and was by the court approved, and the receiver was thereupon discharged; and the court made certain allowances to the receiver for his services, and to his attorneys and to his employés for their services, and allowed the receiver's costs in the proceeding.The amount of these allowances the defendant was ordered to pay to the clerk of the court below, who was ordered to disburse the same as so allowed.To which order the appellant objected and excepted, and prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted.

The appellant has assigned that the court erred, first, in overruling the appellant's exceptions to the...