Conrades v. Pearcy

Decision Date04 March 1924
Docket NumberNo. 23896.,No. 23897.,23896.,23897.
Citation302 Mo. 627,259 S.W. 98
PartiesCONRADES et al. v. PEARCY et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses Hartmann, Judge.

Action by J. H. Conrades and others, as receivers of the Blue Bird Manufacturing Company, against the Blue Bird Appliance Company, in which Emmet J. Finneran was appointed receiver for the defendant, and Elmer E. Pearcy and Luther Ely Smith were appointed attorneys for the receiver. The receiver and counsel filed motions for compensation for services, which were stricken, and they respectively appeal. Affirmed.

Smith & Pearcy, of St. Louis, for Emmet J. Finneran, receiver, and pro se.

Wm. S. Bedal, of St. Louis, for Wm. H. Schaumberg, receiver successor to J. H. Conrades, Thomas Mellow, and Ben G. Brinkman, receivers of the Blue Bird Mfg. Co.

RAILEY, C.

I. The real issue in this court is contained in a narrow compass. It appears from the record that on May 25, 1920, the St. Louis circuit court appointed John H. Conrades, Thomas Mellow, and Ben G. Brinkman receivers of the Blue Bird Manufacturing Company, a Delaware corporation. Said receivers took charge of all the assets of above corporation, a part of which consisted of 51 per cent. of the capital stock of the Blue Bird Appliance Company, a Missouri corporation. On June 19, 1920, said receivers commenced an action against the appliance company, in the circuit court aforesaid, to have a receiver appointed for said last-named company. They alleged the ownership of said 51 per cent. of stock as such receivers, and based their right to have a receiver appointed for the appliance company' solely on the ground that all of the directors, officers, managers, and executors of the appliance company had resigned, abandoned the property and assets of said company, and that it was without any officers, directors managers, or executives. The circuit court thereupon appointed, appellant Emmett J. Finneran receiver of the appliance company, who qualified and entered upon the performance of his duties as such receiver. Appellants Pearcy and Smith were likewise appointed as attorneys for Receiver Finneran. On November 1, 1920, Mr. George T. Priest filed, in the St. Louis Court of Appeals, an application for a writ of prohibition against Judge Calhoun, before whom said cause was pending, in which a receiver had been appointed to take charge of the property and assets of the appliance company. Mr. Priest alleged in his application for a writ that he was a stockholder and creditor of the appliance company, etc. He further alleged that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to appoint said receiver, and that its acts in so doing were void, etc. Thereafter the St. Louis Court of Appeals issued in said cause a writ of prohibition against the judge of the circuit court aforesaid, before whom said cause was pending, which absolutely cut off his right to proceed further in said cause (207 Mo. App. 149, 226 S. W. 329). Our court en banc, in a certiorari proceeding, refused to quash the record of the Court of Appeals in respect to its action in issuing the writ of prohibition aforesaid. In other words, the Court of Appeals, in legal effect, held that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to appoint Mr. Finneran as receiver of the appliance company; and that all the proceedings with reference to the appointment of said appellants were coram non judice and void. After the issuance of said writ of prohibition, appellant Finneran, as receiver, and said appellants Pearcy and Smith, as his counsel, filed in the circuit court, aforesaid their respective motions, in which they each claimed the sum of $10,000 as compensation for their services. Both motions were by the trial court stricken from the files of said court, without any further disposition of the matter. Thereupon, both Finneran...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Simplex Paper Corp. v. Standard Corrugated Box Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 1936
    ...under a bill which confers no jurisdiction upon the court is void absolutely. Jones v. Schaff Bros., 187 Mo.App. 597; Conrades v. Pearcy, 259 S.W. 98; Finneran Burton, 291 F. 37. Jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be conferred upon any court by consent of the parties. In State ex rel......
  • Conrades v. Blue Bird Appliance Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1924
    ...259 S.W. 98 302 Mo. 627 J. H. CONRADES et al., Receivers of BLUE BIRD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, v. BLUE BIRD APPLIANCE COMPANY et al.; EMMETT J. FINNERAN, Receiver of BLUE BIRD APPLIANCE COMPANY, and ELMER E. PEARCY" and LUTHER ELY SMITH, Appellants Nos. 23896, 23897Supreme Court of MissouriMarch 4, 1924 ...           Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court; Hon. Moses ... Hartmann, Judge ...           ... Affirmed ...          Smith & Pearcy for appellant ...     \xC2" ... ...
  • Amos v. Burwell & Sibley
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • August 24, 1932
    ... ... fees contracted under a void proceeding would not be a charge ... upon the property of the corporation. See Conrades v ... Blue Bird Appliance Co., 302 Mo. 627, 259 S.W. 98; ... Finneran v. Burton (C. C. A.) 291 F. 37, 34 A. L. R ... 1351; Jackson v. H. M. Wade ... ...
  • State ex rel. Pettibone v. Mulloy
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1932
    ... ... State ex rel. Knisely v. Board of Trustees, 268 Mo. 163, 186 S.W. 680; State ex rel. Powers v. Rassieur, 180 S.W. 915; Conrades v. Blue Bird Appliance Co., 302 Mo. 627, 259 S.W. 98; State v. Hartmann, 262 S.W. 707 ...         HENWOOD, J ...         This is an ... ...
  • 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