Chicago & S.E. Ry. Co. v. Cason

Citation32 N.E. 827,133 Ind. 49
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana
Decision Date14 December 1892
PartiesCHICAGO & S. E. RY. CO. et al. v. CASON et al.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Boone county; Stephen Neal, Judge.

Action by Samuel L. Cason and others against the Chicago & Southeastern Railway Company and the Midland Railway Company for the appointment of a receiver. From an order appointing a receiver of defendant Chicago & Southeastern Railway Company without notice, it appeals. Reversed.

Henry Crawford and W. R. Crawford, for appellant. T. J. Terhune, N. C. Wills, and Diven & McMahan, for appellees.

Miller, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver of the appellant'sroad and appurtenances. The complaint was filed on the 18th day of June, 1892, and summons issued returnable at the September term of court. Immediately upon the filing of the complaint and supporting affidavits, without notice to or appearance by the appellant, the court appointed a receiver, and directed him to take possession of the appellant's road, with all its equipments, machinery, supplies, and assets, and proceed to operate the road, under the order and direction of the court. The receiver, being present, immediately filed his bond in the penal sum of $50,000, and subscribed an oath, indorsed thereon, for the faithful discharge of the duties of his trust. Afterwards, on the 21st day of July, the appellant appeared in court, and prayed an appeal to this court from the order appointing such receiver. The judge took this motion under advisement, and subsequently adjourned court for the term, without ruling upon the motion. Afterwards, but within 10 days, a transcript was filed in this court, and an appeal allowed and bond approved by this court. The validity of the order appointing a receiver without notice to or appearance by the appellant is the only question involved in the appeal. The complaint charges that the plaintiffs in the action are creditors, holding unsatisfied judgments rendered before justices of the peace and in the Boone circuit court, and also certain claims for unpaid taxes in Boone county; that executions have been issued, and the rolling stock of the company has been levied upon, so as to disable it from operating the road; that the appellant, the Chicago Southeastern Railway Company, and its predecessor, the Midland Railway Company, are both insolvent. It is also averred that there are large quantities of stock along the line of the road under contract for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Stirling v. Logue
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • September 23, 1929
    ......522,. 81 N.E. 494, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 960, 11 Ann Cas. 977;. Continental Clay & Min. Co. v. Bryson, 168 Ind. 485,. 81 N.E. 210; Chicago & S.E. R. Co. v. Cason, 133. Ind. 49, 51, 32 N.E. 827; High on Receivers (3 Ed.), pars. 113, 117; Beach, Receivers, pars. 140-143; Grandin v. La. ......
  • Pyeatt v. Prudential Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 15, 1913
    ......665, 17 So. 118; Bank of Florence v. U.S. Mfg., etc., Co., 104 Ala. 297, 16 So. 110; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Dykeman, 133 Ind. 56, 32 N.E. 823; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Cason, 133 Ind. 49, 32 N.E. 827; Ruffner v. Mairs et al., 33 W. Va. 655, 11 S.E. 5; Fredenheim et al. v. Rohr et al., 87 Va. 764, ......
  • Henderson v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 28, 1907
    ......Continental Clay & Mining Co. v. Bryson (No. 20,932) 81 N. E. 210, and authorities cited; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Cason, 133 Ind. 49, 51, 32 N. E. 827; High on Receivers (3d Ed.) §§ 113, 117; Beach on Receivers, §§ 140, 141, 142, 143. It has ......
  • Pyeatt v. Prudential Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 15, 1913
    ......118;. Bank of Florence v. U.S. Mfg., etc., Co., 104 Ala. 297, 16 So. 110; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Dykeman, 133 Ind. 56, 32 N.E. 823; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Cason,. 133 Ind. 49, 32 N.E. 827; Ruffner v. Mairs et al.,. 33 W.Va. 655, 11 S.E. 5; Fredenheim et al. v. Rohr et. al., 87 Va. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT