Edwin Keatley v. Carrie Rebecca Furey

• Citation: 226 U.S. 399,33 S.Ct. 121,57 L.Ed. 273
• Decision Date: 23 December 1912
• Docket Number: No. 84,84
• Parties: EDWIN M. KEATLEY, as Receiver of American Guaranty Company of Chicago, under Appointment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, Appt., v. CARRIE REBECCA FUREY, as Executrix of the Will of Charles La Tour Furey, and also in Her own Right; Edwin A. Potter, as Receiver of the American Guaranty Company of Chicago, by Appointment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, et al
• Court: United States Supreme Court

226 U.S. 399

33 S.Ct. 121

57 L.Ed. 273

EDWIN M. KEATLEY, as Receiver of American Guaranty Company of Chicago, under Appointment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, Appt.,

v CARRIE REBECCA FUREY, as Executrix of the Will of Charles La Tour Furey, and also in Her own Right; Edwin A. Potter, as Receiver of the American Guaranty Company of Chicago, by Appointment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, et al.

No. 84.

Argued December 12, 1912.

Decided December 23, 1912.

Messrs. F. W. Houghton, W. E. Chilton, George B. Edgerton, and Thomas H. Gill for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 399-401 intentionally omitted] Mr. Levy Mayer for appellees.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the circuit court, taken by an intervener on the ground that the court never had ob- tained jurisdiction over the defendant. The petition to intervene was dismissed, the decree declaring that the court had jurisdiction, that there was no equity in the petition, and that the petitioner was not entitled to any of the relief prayed for. The court allowed the appeal, but certified that, in its opinion, no question of jurisdiction was involved. The appellant contends that the contrary appears on the face of the record. United States v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333, 52 L. ed. 517, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 417; The Jefferson, 215 U. S. 130, 137, 54 L. ed. 125, 128, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 54, 17 Ann. Cas. 907; Herndon-Carter Co. v. James N. Norris, Son & Co. 224 U. S. 496, 56 L. ed. 857, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550.

The material facts are these. On February 1, 1909, there was filed in a local court of West Virginia a bill for the dissolution of the American Guaranty Company, a corporation of that state. The corporation appeared and consented, and on the same day a decree was entered dissolving the corporation, appointing a receiver to whom Keatley is successor, and directing him to take the steps necessary to secure possession of the company's property within the jurisdiction of the court. By the charter of the company its principal office was to be in Chicago, and in fact its bank deposits, bonds, etc., were almost wholly there. On February 2 the suit now before this court was brought in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois on the ground that the West Virginia receiver had no authority outside of his state, praying for a receiver and the distribution of the assets collected. There was an appearance and consent in the name of the corporation, a receiver was appointed, and he proceeded to collect the assets. It is stated by the judge in his opinion that more than 7,000 out of the 7,030 claims against the company had been presented in the cause. On October 27, 1909, the West Virginia receiver filed his petition of intervention, setting up that the corporation, having been dissolved, could not appear in the suit.

Whether the exception to the general rule concerning jurisdiction of appeals like this, established by Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618, 42 L. ed. 602, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214, and Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co. 198 U. S. 424, 49 L. ed. 1111, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 740, applies to the present case, and what may be the merits of the argument against the right to appear in the name of the corporation, if the question is open, cannot be considered until the petitioner's right to present that argument is made out. On that matter we will assume that, if the petitioner had a case below, the denial of the right to intervene was not a discretionary decision, and final on that ground. Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311, 315, 316, 44 L. ed. 782, 785, 786, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 636. But of course the petitioner's standing in the lower court depended on his having title, and was not a consequence of his Virginia appointment alone, unless at least he got a...