Duncan v. Barnard Cope Mfg. Co., No. 27331.

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation223 N.W. 775,176 Minn. 470
Docket NumberNo. 27331.
Decision Date21 February 1929
PartiesDUNCAN et al. v. BARNARD COPE MFG. CO. BARNARD v. ADVANCE PAINT CO. et al.
223 N.W. 775
176 Minn. 470
DUNCAN et al.
v.
BARNARD COPE MFG. CO.
BARNARD
v.
ADVANCE PAINT CO. et al.
No. 27331.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
February 21, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Mathias Baldwin, Judge.

Action by Robert F. Duncan and others against the Barnard Cope Manufacturing Company, wherein H. A. Barnard was appointed receiver. From a judgment settling receiver's account and directing a payment of certain expenses of receivership and certain debts of receiver for merchandise, the receiver appeals, opposed by the Advance Paint Company and others. Appeal dismissed.

Robert M. Works, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Rockwood & Mitchell, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.


Motion to dismiss the appeal.

The action is one to appoint a receiver for and wind up the affairs of defendant corporation. H. A. Barnard was appointed as one of the receivers, and later became sole receiver. He filed his final account, and hearing was had thereon. The court made its order settling the account and directing the payment of certain expenses of the receivership and certain debts of the receiver for merchandise purchased by him in carrying on the receivership business. This absorbed the funds remaining in the receiver's hands. He attempted to appeal from the order, but the appeal was dismissed because not taken in time. He then caused a purported judgment

176 Minn. 471

to be entered, embodying that part of the order directing these payments to be made, and this appeal is from the alleged judgment. The question presented is whether an order settling the final account of a receiver and directing distribution of the remaining funds is such an order as to authorize the entry of a judgment from which an appeal can be taken within six months after entry thereof. The record has been returned here and has been examined. We find nothing therein to distinguish the order from that ordinarily made upon hearing and settling the account of a receiver. An action of this kind is probably no more and no less a special proceeding than an action to foreclose a mortgage, or an insolvency proceeding under the old law. It has been the rule in this state that orders settling the accounts of receivers in different kinds of actions and proceedings are final and appealable. In re State Bank, 57 Minn. 361, 59 N. W. 315; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Backus, 74 Minn. 264, 77 N. W. 142; Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Mickelson-Shapiro Co., 134 Minn. 422, 159...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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