Kirker v. Owings
Decision Date | 05 July 1899 |
Docket Number | 659. |
Citation | 98 F. 499 |
Parties | KIRKER et al. v. OWINGS et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court for the payment of $1,300 against E. C. Kirker, personally, and S. T. Dewees the surety on Kirker's bond as receiver of the court. The decree was entered in the suit in which Kirker had been appointed receiver. The suit was begun, by what was termed an 'ancillary bill,' by Robert Ballard, trustee, against the Ella Layman Towboat Company. Ballard averred that he was a citizen of Ohio, and that the Ella Layman Towboat Company the defendant, was organized under the laws of the state of West Virginia for the business of towing and freighting coal and other commodities, and owning a number of steamboats and barges, and other plants and appliances incident to such business; that on November 23, 1896, the company had made an assignment to complainant for the benefit of creditors; that among the assets assigned was the steamboat Springhill, nine barges, and one flat, all of which were then in the Tennessee river. The remaining averments of the bill were as follows:
On the same day that the bill was filed a certified copy of the order by the circuit court for the district of West Virginia was filed, which, after reciting that actions had been brought against the defendant company in the circuit court of Roane county, Tenn., and attachments had been issued and levied upon the steamer Springhill, and that the loss of the use of the steamer would be fatal to the profitable contract which the defendant company had for towing upon said Tennessee river, authorized the receiver to remove the case from the circuit court of Roane county to the circuit court for the Eastern district of Tennessee, and to give bond in the attachment suit for the release of the steamer Springhill, and to use the same in the towing contract on the Tennessee river. Upon the tendering of the bill and the order the court below allowed the bill to be filed, and made the following order:
On December 14th, Kirker filed the following bond:
Henry O. Ewing, Clerk.'
On the 27th of September, 1897, the receiver, made the following report to the court: 'Your receiver begs leave to submit the following report in reference to the business and management of the property of the Ella Layman Towboat Company, embracing the jurisdiction of your honor's court: Exhibit No. 1 is a statement of the expenditures and receipts from November 24, 1896, to September 1, 1897; also statement of the amount of ore delivered at South Pittsburg, and the amount obtained by Roberts, Sparks & Co. out of said shipments, to be applied on payment for barges; and shows, also, profit and loss, showing the net amount of the earnings of the steamer Springhill to have been $2,500.81, showing the payment on the barge account to have been $747.75 in excess of the earnings of the boat. When your receiver took charge of the business, he was confident that the steamer could be run, and made to pay expenses and repairs to the boat, and allow the application to the barge account...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buggeln v. Cameron
...138; Coosaw Min. Co. v. Carolina Min. Co., 75 F. 860 (867); Tyler Min. Co. v. Last Chance Min. Co., 90 F. 15 (22), 32 C.C.A. 498; Kirker v. Owings, 98 F. 499 (508-510), 39 132; West v. East Coast Cedar Co., 110 F. 727; West v. East Coast Cedar Co., 113 F. 742, 51 C.C.A. 416; Baer v. Fidelit......
-
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
...Abridgment at 127; Coke, 4 Inst. at 79. The Ordinary side of Chancery has been referred to as "common-law chancery," see Kirker v. Owings, 98 F. 499, 506 (6th Cir.1899), and proceeded according to the laws and statutes of England, exercising the ordinary powers of Chancery. Middle Temple, G......
-
Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gaskell
...... is, and must be, governed by its orders exclusively. He may. not justify any action by any orders of the court of primary. jurisdiction. Kirker v. Owings, 98 F. 499, 511, 39. C.C.A. 132, 144; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254,. 272, 11 Sup.Ct. 773, 35 L.Ed. 464. The suggestion that such ......
-
Receivers of Middlesex Banking Co. v. Realty Inv. Co.
...L. R. A. 1917D, 291; Brooks v. Smith (C. C. A.) 290 F. 33; Lewis v. American Naval Stores Co. (C. C.) 119 F. 391, 397; Kirker v. Owings, 98 F. 499, 511, 39 C. C. A. 132; Smith v. Taggart, 87 F. 94, 30 C. C. A. 563; Buswell v. Order of Iron Hall, 36 N. E. 1065, 161 Mass. 224, 235, 23 L. R. A......