Cobbs v. Vizard Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1913
• Citation: 182 Ala. 372,62 So. 730
• Parties: COBBS v. VIZARD INV. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

62 So. 730

182 Ala. 372

COBBS v. VIZARD INV. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 13, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E.C. Crowe, Judge.

Claim of Vizard Investment Company was allowed, and J.B. Cobbs receiver, appeals. Dismissed.

Edmund H. Dryer and A. Leo Oberdorfer, both of Birmingham, and Knox Acker, Dixon & Sims, of Talladega, for appellant.

Thompson & Thompson, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Creditors of the Union Bank & Trust Company, a corporation, filed the bill in this case alleging the insolvency of the said Bank &amp Trust Company, and praying that its assets be decreed to constitute a trust fund for the payment of the claims of all its creditors, and that the same be marshaled and administered for their benefit as provided by section 3509 of the Code. Under the bill, and in accordance with its prayer appellant was appointed receiver. J.S. Kennedy filed his claim as a depositing creditor in the sum of $3,894. His deposit had been made to the credit of "J.S. Kennedy, as trustee." Ector H. Smith had been president of the insolvent corporation, had controlled its affairs, and was largely indebted to it. Kennedy had received and deposited the money in the course of transactions in which Smith and the Vizard Investment Company were interested, and the complication was such that he did not really know to whom it belonged. Both Smith and the Investment Company claimed it. After the time fixed by the court for the presentation of claims against the estate had expired, the Investment Company was allowed by the court to propound its claim to that part of the fund in question by procuring the claim filed by Kennedy to be so amended as to show a claim in its behalf. The Investment Company's claim was disallowed by the clerk, acting as register. But on exceptions taken to his report the court reversed the clerk's finding, and decreed the deposit to be the property of the Investment Company. The receiver seeks by this appeal to review the court's ruling in that behalf.

Appellee moves that the appeal be dismissed. We discover no reason why the appeal should be allowed, and are of opinion that the motion should prevail. A receiver may undoubtedly appeal from orders and decrees affecting his claims for fees and expenses or involving him in personal responsibility. Thornton v Highland Ave. R.R. Co., 94 Ala. 353, 10 So. 442. But he is the mere agent of the court for the collection and distribution of the assets of the insolvent corporation under orders of the court which fully protect him, and in this disposition of the property he has no personal concern, except to the limited extent indicated above. And so it is generally held that he cannot appeal from an order respecting the conflicting claims of creditors. To such controversies the receiver is not a party in...