Florida Const. Co. v. Young
| Decision Date | 12 December 1892 |
| Docket Number | 97. |
| Citation | 59 F. 721 |
| Parties | FLORIDA CONST. CO. v. YOUNG et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Statement by WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal by the Florida Construction Company from an order of the circuit court entered August 2, 1892, whereby a receiver was appointed of all the property of the construction company within the jurisdiction of the court with power to reduce the assets of the company to his possession, and to hold the same during the pendency of the action, subject to the further order or decree of the court. The order provided that the officers and agents of the construction company should forthwith deliver up to the receiver all and every part of the property of the company and all books, accounts, vouchers, and papers in any way relating to its business. The order also provided that the construction company, its officers and agents, be enjoined and restrained from removing from the jurisdiction of the court any of the books, papers, or property of the company and from disposing of any of the assets or property of the company, and from interfering in any way in the possession or control of the receiver over the same.
Thomas Thacher, (John W. Simpson, on the brief,) for appellant.
William B. Hornblower, (Wallace Macfarlane, on the brief,) for appellees.
Before WALLACE, Circuit Judge, and WHEELER, District Judge.
WALLACE Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts.)
The appellant insists that a sufficient case was not made in the court below for the appointment of a receiver by the bill of complaint and the depositions used upon the motion, and, this being so, that the injunction should not have been granted by the circuit court. We are of the opinion that we are not at liberty upon the present appeal to inquire whether the circuit court erred in appointing a receiver, but are confined to the question whether, there being a proper case for the receivership, the injunction was not a necessary or proper auxiliary remedy. This court cannot review the action of the circuit court in appointing a receiver, except upon an appeal from a final decree. Our appellate jurisdiction is confined to the review of final decisions by appeal or writ of error (section 6, Court of Appeals Act,) except where, by section 7, an appeal may be taken in equity causes from an interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing an injunction. The order appointing a receiver is not appealable, because it is not a final decision. Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; Grant v. Insurance Co., 106 U.S. 429, 1 S.Ct. 414. We ought not to attempt to review indirectly an order or decision which we are not permitted to review directly; and if this court should conclude that an injunction should not have been ordered, because there was not a sufficient case for the appointment of a receiver, our mandate could not direct the circuit court to vacate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. v. Goshen Sweeper Co.
...Co., 15 C.C.A. 26, 67 F. 809. In the Second circuit the question seems to have received no conclusive consideration. In Construction Co. v. Young, 8 C.C.A. 231, 59 F. 721, Judge Wallace, for the court, 'The language of the section permits a review of the order or decree granting or continui......
-
Coltrane v. Templeton
...not be reviewed at this stage of the case (In re Tampa Suburban Ry. Co., 168 U.S. 583, 18 Sup.Ct. 177, 42 L.Ed. 589; Construction Co. v. Young, 8 C.C.A. 231, 59 F. 721). The act of June 16, 1900, allowing appeals from orders appointing receivers, was not passed until after the decision in t......
-
Lake Street El. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
...upon in determining an appeal from an interlocutory order of injunction. In Construction Co. v. Young, 11 U.S.App. 683, 8 C.C.A. 231, and 59 F. 721, there was no question of jurisdiction, and the quoted and relied upon are, perhaps, not in harmony with our decision in Andrews v. Pipe Works,......
-
Andrews v. National Foundry & Pipe Works
... ... On ... [61 F. 791.] ... question, see Construction Co. v. Young, 59 F. 721, ... 8 C.C.A. 231; Dudley E. Jones Co. v. Munger, etc., Co., 2 ... U.S.App. 188, 1 ... v ... Jacksonville, etc., Ry.Co., 55 F. 131, 5 C.C.A. 53; ... American Const. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 148 U.S ... 372, 13 Sup.Ct. 758. The appointment in this case was of a ... ...