Farmers' Nat. Bank of Owatonna v. Backus
| Decision Date | 22 November 1898 |
| Citation | 74 Minn. 264,77 N.W. 142 |
| Parties | FARMERS' NAT. BANK OF OWATONNA v. BACKUS et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Charles E. Otis, Judge.
Action by the Farmers' National Bank of Owatonna against Hiram Backus and others. James A. Owens was appointed receiver, and presented a petition to the court. From an order granting the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. A national bank, after the expiration of the time limit of its charter, continues to exist as a person in law, capable of suing and being sued, until its affairs are completely settled.
2. Held, upon the special facts of this case, that the trial court did not err in ordering the appellant to pay the balance of the fees and expenses of the receiver herein.
Sawyer & Sperry, for appellant.
Stevens, O'Brien, Cole & Albrecht, for respondent.
The respondent, James A. Owens, presented his verified petition to the district court of the county of Ramsey, which set forth substantially these facts: The petitioner, on July 3, 1895, was by order of the court appointed receiver in this action of the real estate which was the subject-matter thereof (conceded on the argument to be an apartment house on which the plaintiff had a second mortgage), and has continued to act as such receiver to the present time. That the defendant Hiram Backus appealed from the order to this court, giving to the plaintiff in this action a bond conditioned for the payment to it of such loss as it might sustain on account of the appeal. Pending the appeal, the income of the property was paid to the defendant. This court affirmed the order appointing the receiver. 64 Minn. 43, 66 N. W. 5. Thereupon the plaintiff, by action on the bond, recovered from the defendant and his sureties the sum of $3,100, as damages for the income from the property it was unable to collect through the receiver pending the appeal. The petition further sets forth the amount of respondent's costs and expenses necessarily incurred in the receivership, the amount of his reasonable fees for services, the amount of money which actually came to his hands as receiver from the property, which was less than his expenses and fees; also, that the property had been lost by foreclosure of a prior lien, that the defendant was insolvent, and that the receiver had no money or funds in his hands to pay the balance of the fees and expenses. The prayer of the petition was that the plaintiff be required to pay such balance. The district court made its order requiring the plaintiff to show cause why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted. The plaintiff appeared specially in response to the order, filed an affidavit to the effect that its charter expired by limitation, and it went into voluntary liquidation, which had been consummated, and that at the date of the order its corporate existence had ceased, and on this ground objected to the jurisdiction of the court. The objection was overruled, and it then appeared generally; but, so far as appears from the record, it did not put in issue any of the facts of the petition, or question the propriety, necessity, or reasonableness of the respondent's charges for expenses and fees as receiver. The trial court found, among other facts, that the respondent was appointed receiver at the request of and for the benefit of the plaintiff, and adjudged the balance due to the respondent for such expenses and fees to be $578.52, and ordered that the plaintiff pay this amount to the receiver. The plaintiff appealed from this order.
The appellant here insists on two propositions only:
1. That the trial court erred in overruling the objection to its jurisdiction. It is urged that after the expiration of the appellant's charter, and it had passed through liquidation, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowersock Mills & Power Co. v. Joyce
...108 Iowa 287, 294, 79 N.W. 64; Cutter v. Pollock, 4 N.D. 205, 59 N.W. 1062, 25 L.R.A. 377, 50 Am.St.Rep. 644; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Backus, 74 Minn. 264, 267, 77 N.W. 142; Crump & Field v. First Nat. Bank, 229 Ky. 526, 17 S.W. 2d 436, 68 A.L.R. 872, and annotations, page 878. See, also, Cla......
-
Fifth Third Bank v. Dayton Lodge, LLC
...373–375, 28 S.Ct. 406, 52 L.Ed. 528, citing Ephraim v. Pacific Bank, 129 Cal. 589, 592, 62 P. 177 (1900); Farmers' Nat. Bank of Owatonna v. Backus, 74 Minn. 264, 77 N.W. 142 (1898); Cutter v. Pollock, 7 N.D. 631, 634, 76 N.W. 235 (1898). {¶ 44} The Supreme Court of Ohio applied Atlantic Tru......
-
Farmers National Bank of Owatonna v. Backus
... ... the income of the property, which would otherwise have been ... paid to the receiver; and the effect of the decision of this ... court affirming the order was to establish the right of the ... receiver to such income from the date of his appointment ... Farmers Nat. Bank v. Backus, 64 Minn. 43, 66 N.W. 5 ... If the ... defendant had been solvent, and the receiver had recovered ... such income from him, the fund would have been chargeable ... with the receiver's fees and expenses. But, the defendant ... being insolvent, the money ... ...
-
Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. Co. v. Parry
... ... 133 U.S. 78, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568; German Nat. Bank v ... Best, 32 Colo. 192, 75 P. 398; Bassick M. Co ... Gifford, 31 Iowa 428; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Backus, 74 ... Minn. 264, 77 N.W. 142; Tome ... ...