Galveston, H. & N. Ry. Co. v. House
| Citation | 102 F. 112 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1900 |
| Docket Number | 900. |
| Parties | GALVESTON, H. & N. RY. CO. v. HOUSE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Walter Gresham and D. F. Rowe, for appellant.
F. C Dillard, J. W. Terry, and T. W. Ford, for appellees.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
A motion has been submitted to dismiss this appeal for the following reasons: (1) The appeal was not seasonably perfected, because it was allowed by the court on the 28th day of November, 1899, assignment of errors having been previously filed on the 25th day of November, 1899, but appeal bond was not approved until the 12th day of December 1899, and citation signed on this same day, which was returnable in 30 days, and the record was not filed in this court until January 19, 1900. (2) There are a large number of parties whose interests are sought to be affected by this appeal as to whom no summons or severance has been made or sought, who have not been cited herein, and upon whom no service of citation has been sought, and who have not waived such service. (3) The Galveston, Laporte & Houston Railway Company, the defendant in the suit, and the mortgagor in the mortgages which were foreclosed in the final decree, has not been cited herein, nor is it in any way made a party to the appeal bond.
The main suit was originally commenced by A. J. Tullock against the Galveston, Laporte & Houston Railway Company, and a receiver was appointed. Subsequently the Union Trust Company and the Continental Trust Company, trustees in two several mortgages granted by the Galveston, Laporte & Houston Railway Company, intervened in the suit, and filed cross bills seeking the foreclosure of their respective mortgages. Thereafter, other parties having intervened in the meantime the court rendered a final decree of foreclosure of the two mortgages, and ordered a sale of all the railroad property to satisfy the decree. After some delay and several offerings, a sale was effected under this decree to L. J. Smith, who assigned to Charles Broadhead, who assigned to the Galveston Houston & Northern Railway Company, the appellant herein. The sale was duly confirmed, and by operation of law said Galveston, Houston & Northern Railway Company became the successor of all the rights, privileges, and franchises of the sold-out company. Pending the proceedings of foreclosure and sale, the administration by the receiver was so far unfortunate as to result in largely increasing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. Wiltsee, 2070.
...Hyde (C. C. A.) 296 F. 862; Reinecke v. Peacock (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 583; Higbee v. Chadwick (C. C. A.) 220 F. 873; Galveston, H. & N. Ry. Co. v. House (C. C. A.) 102 F. 112. Why Parker, the New England Oil Corporation, or the Tanker Syndicate should be joined as appellants it is difficult t......
-
Queenan v. Mays
...circumstances. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co. (C.C.A.) 58 F. 6, 11, 12. So did the Fifth Circuit. Galveston, H. & N. Ry. Co. v. House (C. C.A.) 102 F. 112. The motion to dismiss will be The receiver asserts that the bank acquired title to the Mays bonds through a purchase ther......
-
Smith v. Grilk
...has no interest that would be affected by the appeal, such party is not a necessary party to the appeal. See Galveston, H. & N. Co. v. House et al. (C. C. A.) 102 F. 112;U. S. v. Exploration Company, Ltd. (C. C. A.) 203 F. 387;Germain v. Mason, 12 Wall. 259, 20 L. Ed. 392;Williams v. S. C. ......
-
Mathis v. Hemingway
...no such interest as made him a necessary party to an appeal from a decree distributing the proceeds of the sale. Galveston H. & N. Ry. Co. v. House (C. C. A.) 102 F. 112, 114. Without stopping to consider the effect of the decree of July 13, 1926, as a final judgment entered by consent of t......