Fulton Inv. Co. v. Dorsey
| Decision Date | 04 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 4167. |
| Parties | FULTON INV. CO. et al. v. DORSEY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Edwin H. Park, of Denver, Colo., for appellants.
L. F Twitchell, of Denver, Colo. (Archibald A. Lee, of Denver Colo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and T.C. MUNGER and YOUMANS, District judges.
In a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage upon real estate, entered by the court below, it was directed that the property be sold in satisfaction thereof, at the town of Hahn's Peak Routt county, Colo. Soon thereafter, but at the following term, a petition was presented showing that the county seat of Routt county had been changed from Hahn's Peak to Steamboat Springs, and praying that the decree should be modified so as to direct the sale of the property at the courthouse in Steamboat Springs. After notice to counsel and a hearing, the modification prayed for was made. A sale was had in conformity to the amendment, and the sale was confirmed over the objections of one of the appellants.
The pleadings are not contained in the transcript, and it does not appear that the Fulton Investment Company has any interest in the appeal. While it was a party to the suit, it may have been merely a formal and unnecessary party, or may have received all the relief to which it was entitled. The other appellant did not make any objections to the sale or its confirmation, and both join in an appeal. The proceedings could properly be dismissed. Fitzgerald v. Evans, 49 F. 426, 1 C.C.A. 307; Midland Valley R. Co. v. Fulgham, 181 F. 91, 104 C.C.A. 151; Northern Union Gas Co. v. Mayer, 174 F. 817, 98 C.C.A. 525.
The appeal sought to be prosecuted is from the order confirming the sale; it being alleged that the sale at Steamboat Springs was contrary to law. Congress provides that lands sold under an order or decree of any United States court shall be sold at the courthouse of the county, parish, or city in which the property, or the greater part of it, is located, or upon the premises, as the court may direct. Act March 3, 1893, c. 225 27 Stat. 751. The order of the court sought to make the decree conform to this statute, and pertained only to the enforcement of the decree. While a court may not, after the term, amend the principles of a final decree, it has the inherent right to modify, by a subsequent order, the time of the enforcement, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beacon Oil Co. v. Maniatis
...suit. Kingsley v. Fall River, 280 Mass. 395, 398, 182 N. E. 841. Compare Mootry v. Grayson (C. C. A.) 104 F. 613, 618;Fulton Investment Co. v. Dorsey (C. C. A.) 220 F. 298; Lawrence v. Staigg, 10 R. I. 581, 599, et seq.; Totten v. Totten, 299 Ill. 43, 132 N. E. 277. A new bill to carry the ......
-
Godard v. Babson-Dow Mfg. Co.
...enforcement of even a final decree. Beacon Oil Co. v. Maniatis, 284 Mass. 574 , 577. Mootry v. Grayson, 104 F. 613, 618. Fulton Investment Co. v. Dorsey, 220 F. 298. People v. Lewe, 380 Ill. 531, 535, et seq. Fund Commissioners of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia, 324 Penn. St. 129, 135. That s......
-
Beacon Oil Company v. Alexander Maniatis
... ... decree, Mootry v. Grayson, 104 F. 613, 618; Fulton Investment ... Co. v. Dorsey, 220 F. 298; Lawrence v. Staigg, 10 R. I. 581, ... 599, et seq.; ... ...
-
People ex rel. Meier v. Lewe
...Farmers' Loan Co. v. Oregon Pacific Railway Co., 28 Or. 44, 40 P. 1089;Cadotte v. Cadotte, 120 Mich. 667, 79 N.W. 932;Fulton Investment Co. v. Dorsey, 8 Cir., 220 F. 298;Bound v. South Carolina Railway, C.C., 55 F. 186. While this court has not directly passed upon the question of the juris......