Hicks v. First Nat. Bank, 4 Div. 632.
Decision Date | 07 April 1932 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 632. |
Citation | 140 So. 882,224 Ala. 494 |
Parties | HICKS v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF MOBILE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Petition of the First National Bank of Mobile for allowance of its claim against the Elba Bank & Trust Company, in liquidation, and payment of a dividend by J. W. Hicks, as receiver thereof. From an order or decree for petitioner, the receiver appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Owen & Carmichael and J. C. Fleming, all of Elba, for appellant.
C. L. Rowe, of Elba, for appellee.
This appeal is from an order or decree of the court directing the receiver to pay over to the appellee, a creditor, its pro rata share of a dividend from the assets of the insolvent Elba Bank & Trust Company. In other words, the decree does not affect the receiver personally, and is a mere determination of the relative rights of creditors of the insolvent bank, and does not involve an increase or diminution of the assets as a whole.
It has been held by this court as well as the weight of authority that a receiver in such a case cannot appeal from such a decree rendered by a court appointing him without first obtaining leave of the court to do so. Unless given authority, a receiver cannot appeal from a decree allowing the claim of a creditor, as he has no interest in the distribution. Cobbs, Rec., v. Vizard Inv. Co., 182 Ala. 372, 62 So. 730, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 801; Cobbs v. Cook, 182 Ala. 331, 62 So. 729; Coffey v. Gay, 191 Ala. 137, 67 So. 681, L. R. A. 1915D, 802, and note.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. M. S. Alper & Son, Inc.
...157 A. 845; Stowell v. Arizona Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 93 Ariz. 310, 380 P.2d 606; Hatten v. Vose, 10 Cir., 156 F.2d 464; Hicks v. First Nat. Bank, 224 Ala. 494, 140 So. 882. Whether the appointing court should give such permission in some states is said to be discretionary. Beilman v. Poe, 120 ......