In re Basin State Bank, 1651

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Writing for the Court: RINER, Justice.
• Citation: 296 P. 1074,43 Wyo. 1
• Parties: IN RE BASIN STATE BANK (eight cases)
• Decision Date: 31 March 1931
• Docket Number: 1654,1652,1657,1653,1658,1655,1656,1651

296 P. 1074

43 Wyo. 1

IN RE BASIN STATE BANK (eight cases)

Nos. 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658

Supreme Court of Wyoming

March 31, 1931

APPEAL from District Court, Big Horn County; CYRUS O. BROWN, Judge.

In the matter of the liquidation and insolvency of the Basin State Bank, wherein the Bradley State & Savings Bank, Bradley, Ill., the Omaha Branch Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the Denver Branch Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the Montana National Bank of Billings, Mont., the American National Bank of Cheyenne, the Midland National Bank of Billings, Mont., the Advance Rumely Thresher Company, and the American Railway Express Company, filed claims, objected to by William C. Snow. From judgments allowing claims as preferred claims on bank's assets in the hands of the state examiner, the objector appeals. Heard on motion to dismiss.

Appeals dismissed.

Case No. 1651. For claimant and respondent Bradley State and Savings Bank, there was a brief by Thomas M. Hyde, of Basin, Wyoming, on the merits.

For appellant there was a brief by William C. Snow, pro se, and Charles L. Brome, both of Basin, Wyoming.

For claimant and respondent Omaha Branch Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, there was a brief by William E. Mullen, of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and H. G. Leedy, of Kansas City, Mo., and oral arguments by Mr. Mullen and Mr. Leedy, on the motion to dismiss.

After the objections were filed to the allowance of respondent's claim, made pursuant to Sec. 97, Ch. 157, Laws 1925, and apparently that is the only law under which objections could be made, it should be noted that there is no provision, under which claimant could be made a party to the hearing on the objections. The parties to the hearing before the District Court on such objections, seem to be the State Examiner, and the person filing the objections. No provision is made for pleadings by either party. The court is authorized to hear the objections or refer them to a referee, or upon demand of either the examiner or objector, to direct that the issues be tried to a jury. If the proceedings are to be considered adversary in any sense, the controversy is limited to the State Examiner, and the objector, and it is doubtful whether an appealable order or judgment may be rendered. It is even more doubtful whether the claimant, who was not under the Statute a party to the hearing, could appeal from the court's decision. The claimant is not without a remedy. Under Sec. 92 of Chap. 157, Laws 1925 (the Banking Act) he may if his claim is rejected prosecute a civil action thereon within six months after receiving notice of such rejection. Hearings on objections to claims of this character, are not civil actions, nor do they partake of the nature of special proceedings; hence there would not seem to be any general right of appeal. Sec. 6369, 6371, C. S. 1920; 6401-6415 idem. The general jurisdiction of District Courts is of course not invoked by statutes such as Sec. 97, Ch. 157, Laws 1925, where special authority is conferred upon a court of general jurisdiction, and no appeal is provided by the statute, so the decision is final. Phillips v. Corbin, 49 P. 279; 3 C. J. 325-326, and even where an appeal is provided for, without designating procedure therefore, there can be no appeal. Midwest Hotel Co. v. Board of Equalization, 39 Wyo. 461; 273 P. 696. No right of appeal, and no appellate procedure is provided by Sec. 97, Ch. 157, Laws 1925, and as no provision is made for making the claimant a party, it would appear that the objector has no standing here, as an appellant, and that his appeal should be dismissed. The proceeding below was docketed:

"In The Matter of the Liquidation and Insolvency of Basin State Bank, Numbered 3692."

After objections were filed to the allowance of respondent's claim hearings were had in the District Court and evidence submitted. At the hearings, each claim was taken up separately, separate orders were made by the court affirming the examiner's allowance of each of the claims, and the entire record was bound into three separate packets or volumes numbered "1" to "3" inclusive. An attempt was made to treat each of the eight cases, or claims, as separate and independent controversies. Separate orders were made, separate notices of appeal were served, and separate specifications of error were served and filed as to each claim. The record was then prepared in three volumes, and the cases were docketed in this court as Nos. 1651 to 1658, both inclusive. The record as thus prepared and filed, attempted to include eight alleged appeals in one appeal record, and is in violation of Sec. 6406 C. S., it is not sufficient to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this court. Thomas v. Biven, 32 Wyo. 478; Scott v. Wyoming Rock Products Co., 37 Wyo. 527. The certificate annexed to Volume 1 by the clerk is incomplete in failing to state that the contents thereof are true and correct, as required by Sec. 6406 C. S. The same may be said of the certificate annexed to Volume 2. The certificate annexed to Volume 3, is by the court reporter and relates to the claim of Denver Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. None of the certificates made by the clerk comply with the law. 6406 C. S. The claim presented by respondent, not having been rejected, may not be litigated in a civil action.

No appeal record having been presented as required by law, the case cannot be considered on the merits and should be dismissed.

* * * *

For the objector and appellant in Case Numbered 1652, there was a brief by William C. Snow, pro se, and Charles L. Brome, both of Basin, and oral argument by Mr. Brome in resistance of the motion.

Objector is shown by the record to have been a depositor and general creditor in the liquidation proceedings. He is therefore an interested party within the designation of the statute, with authority to initiate the proceedings below, and prosecute this appeal. The case of Phillips v. Corbin cited by respondent is based on a statute of that state, and cannot be regarded as an authority in this case. The case of Midwest Hotel Company v. Board, turned upon lack of procedure to support an appeal from the decision of the State Board of Equalization. This is a special proceeding, and an appeal lies from a final order made at the hearing on the objections filed by appellant. 6369 C. S., Ch. 392 C. S. The procedure prosecuted on direct appeal, or on error applies. 6401 C. S. Respondents have not questioned the jurisdiction of the District Court to conduct the special proceedings filed under Section 97, Ch. 157, Laws 1925. The order overruling the objections was a final order, subject to review under the general appeal statute. Respondent appeared in the court below, and resisted the objections made to the preferential allowance of its claim. The Bank Examiner first allowed the claim as preferred. Objections were filed with the Examiner which he in turn filed in court, and the District Court ordered a hearing thereon. Respondent appeared and participated in the hearing, and should not be heard now to contend that it is not a proper party to the proceedings. Respondent voluntarily appeared without objection. The court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, and all interested parties. The cases of Thomas v. Bivin, 32 Wyo. 478, and Scott v. Wyoming Rock Products Company, 37 Wyo. 527, cited by respondent, in support of its motion, were dismissed for failure to prepare and file appeal records within the time required by statute. No such claim is made here. The appeal record was filed within time. The real objection is that the appeal record is bound in three volumes, and the same record is filed in other appeals from other orders and judgments. It is contended that this is not a compliance with the statute. The three volumes contain all of the filings made in the insolvency proceedings. Certificates authenticating the whole as one record is attached and the whole is consecutively numbered as required by statute. 6406 C. S. The transcript of testimony was prepared and filed, and brought up on appeal, as a part of the record. The specifications of error were filed and authenticated by the clerk. The statute does not require the whole record to be bound in one volume. If the rule requiring preparation of the record has not been complied with, the proper procedure to secure compliance would be as set forth in Rule 10 of this court. It was also objected that the record on appeal is also the same record filed in other appeals, from other orders. Owing to the fact that the liquidation proceedings below, were docketed under one title, and a number of the original filings there, are an essential part of each of the records on appeal here, it would be physically impossible to attach these original filings to several separate and distinct records. We find no law or rule of this court to the effect that the same record may not be filed as the record in several distinct appeals to the same court. This matter is apparently governed by Supreme Court Rule 12. It is respectfully submitted that the motion to dismiss should be overruled.

For the claimant and respondent, Denver Branch Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Case Numbered 1653, there was a brief by William E. Mullen, of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and H. G. Leedy of Kansas City, Mo., and oral arguments by Mr. Mullen and Mr. Leedy.

The points and authorities are the same as argued in Case Numbered 1652.

For the objector...