Leach v. Sanborn State Bank of Sanborn

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: EVANS, J.
• Citation: Leach v. Sanborn State Bank of Sanborn, 201 Iowa 1323, 207 N.W. 326 (Iowa 1926)
• Decision Date: 16 February 1926
• Docket Number: 37274
• Parties: ROBERT L. LEACH, State Superintendent of Banking, Appellant, v. SANBORN STATE BANK et al., Appellees

207 N.W. 326

201 Iowa 1323

ROBERT L. LEACH, State Superintendent of Banking, Appellant, v. SANBORN STATE BANK et al., Appellees

No. 37274

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 16, 1926

REHEARING DENIED JUNE 21, 1926.

Appeal from O'Brien District Court.--WILLIAM HUTCHINSON, Judge.

PROCEEDING in equity by O'Brien County and its treasurer, to establish a preferred claim against the receiver of the Sanborn State Bank, an insolvent. The claim was established by the district court as a preferred claim, and the receiver appeals.--Appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, and O. H. Montzheimer, for appellant.

L. O Lampman, for appellees.

EVANS J. DE GRAFF, C. J., and ALBERT and MORLING, JJ., concur.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

The title applied to this case is somewhat misleading. The proceeding is had in the matter of the receivership of the Sanborn State Bank. O'Brien County filed its claim, and filed a petition, denominating it a petition in intervention, pleading facts, and praying that the claim be allowed as a preferred one. Notice of the petition was served upon the receiver, through his examiner, who was in direct charge of the bank. No attack was ever made upon the pleading, and no resistance was ever offered thereto, either by pleading or otherwise. This application came on for hearing in due course of the court assignment, and a hearing thereon was had, and an order made, pursuant thereto, establishing the claim as a preferred claim. This is the order or decree from which the receiver purports to appeal. At the hearing, neither party asked that the proceedings or the evidence be taken down in writing, or otherwise preserved. No record was in fact made of such proceeding or evidence. There has been no certification or purported certification of the record of such proceedings, or of such evidence. The order appealed from was entered in term time, on November 19, 1924. On January 10, 1925, the receiver presented to the trial judge, in vacation and in a county other than that in which the case was tried, a petition the prayer of which was as follows:

"Wherefore the receiver asks the court to permit him to appeal said decision of November 19th to the Supreme Court, and further prays the court to grant him a right to an exception to said decision and order of November 19, 1924."

The trial judge purported to grant such prayer, and ordered that the receiver "is hereby allowed an exception to the said ruling of the court and judgment entry, and he is hereby authorized to appeal from said judgment entry to the Supreme Court of Iowa."

The statement of fact in such petition, upon which its prayer was predicated, was:

"That since entry of said order a question has been raised as to the legality of said decision and order, which...