Kirby v. Milum, 4-9322
| Decision Date | 11 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9322,4-9322 |
| Parties | KIRBY et al. v. MILUM. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Willis & Walker, Harrison, for appellants.
W. J. Cotton, Harrison, F. O. Butt, Eureka Springs, for appellee.
This is in substance an attempt to set aside a final order that closed a receivership proceeding involving the Citizens Investment Company, a corporation. The insolvency proceedings were instituted in 1931 by the Arkansas Railroad Commission, under the authority of § 8 of Act 109 of 1931. The appellee was appointed as receiver for the corporation and served until his discharge by court order on December 28, 1948. Thereafter the appellants, three holders of preferred stock in the corporation, sought to obtain judgments against the receiver for the par value of their stock. The appellee demurred to the appellants' petition and also pleaded his discharge as a bar to the relief sought. On the pleadings the chancellor dismissed the petition, and this appeal is from the order of dismissal.
The record is comparatively short, although it is certified as a complete transcript of the seventeen-year receivership. The receiver was appointed in 1931 and filed an inventory of the corporate assets in 1933. Subsequently there were a few court orders approving the settlement of various claims, but the receiver is not shown to have filed any accounts after the 1933 inventory. In March of 1948 his conduct of the receivership was attacked in a petition filed by T. C. Heuer, a preferred stockholder. Heuer alleged that the receiver had been unfaithful to his trust in several respects, in that he had allowed claims held by the corporation to become barred by limitations, had allowed corporate property to forfeit for nonpayment of taxes, had redeemed such property in his own name, had failed to account for money received, and other similar allegations of misconduct. Apparently a hearing was held upon Heuer's petition, at which the court found that with its approval a stockholders' committee had been appointed to advise the receiver in winding up the corporate affairs. This committee concluded that the proceedings should be conducted informally and that the stockholders could not expect to realize more than 15% of the par value of their stock. The receiver was instructed by the committee to dispose of the assets by barter or sale with a view to realizing as near to 15% of the stock liability as possible. The court further found that the actual liquidation did not produce the expected 15% of the investors' claims but that the receiver had offered to pay the full 15%. The court held that all the stockholders had acquiesced in the handling of the proceedings and were estopped to complain. Heuer was accordingly given judgment for 15% of the par value of his stock. There was no appeal.
In December of 1948 the receiver petitioned for his discharge. Stating that he had settled with all creditors and with most stockholders he deposited in court a sum said to be sufficient to pay the remaining stockholders 15% of the face value of their stock. On the same day the court entered an order terminating the proceeding and discharging the receiver.
At the next term of court the appellants filed the petition now before us....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Ark. Milk Producers Ass'n v. Smith
...is jurisdictional. Pattillo v. Toler, 210 Ark. 231, 196 S.W.2d 224; Raymond v. Young, 211 Ark. 577, 201 S.W.2d 583; Kirby v. Milum, 218 Ark. 106, 234 S.W.2d 518. Although the requirement may be satisfied by the introduction of sworn testimony at the hearing on the motion, Pinkert v. Reagan,......
-
Bradley v. Keith
...is jurisdictional. Pattillo v. Toler, 210 Ark. 231, 196 S.W.2d 224; Raymond v. Young, 211 Ark. 577, 201 S.W.2d 583; Kirby v. Milum, 218 Ark. 106, 234 S.W.2d 518. Although the requirement may be satisfied by the introduction of sworn testimony at the hearing on the motion, Pinkert v. Reagan,......