Morgan v. S. Milwaukee Lake View Co.
| Decision Date | 20 September 1898 |
| Citation | 76 N.W. 354,100 Wis. 465 |
| Parties | MORGAN ET AL. v. SOUTH MILWAUKEE LAKE VIEW CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; J. C. Ludwig, Judge.
Action by Win J. Morgan and others against the South Milwaukee Lake View Company and others. From an order denying a motion of defendant company to restrain its receiver from proceeding in a suit, it appealed. Affirmed.
On the 7th day of February, 1898, defendant corporation, the South Milwaukee Lake View Company, made a voluntary assignment for the benefit of its creditors, the papers being filed as required by law, in the office of the circuit court for Milwaukee county. Subsequent to such assignment, on application of plaintiffs, in the action in the superior court for Milwaukee county, after judgment, a receiver for the corporation was duly appointed. Thereafter such receiver commenced an action against the assignee and others, in the circuit court, by the service of a summons, and at or about the same time commenced proceedings before a court commissioner for a discovery, under section 4096, Rev. St., to enable them to plead. In the last-mentioned proceedings it was alleged that the purposes of the action, among others, were to set aside the assignment as fraudulent, to remove the assignee, to collect dividends paid to stockholders, and to collect unpaid stock subscriptions. Thereafter the corporation moved the superior court in this action for an order restraining the receiver from proceeding in the action in the circuit court. The motion was denied and this appeal was taken to review the decision to that effect.McElroy & Eshweiler, for appellant.
E. F. Van Vechten, for respondent.
MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).
It is not contended but that, if an action in equity will lie to remove an assignee, the superior court did not err in refusing to stay the hand of its receiver. Surely, if the suit sought to be restrained were proper, or there was a reasonable doubt about the question, it cannot be said there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in permitting its receiver to proceed. Appellant's motion was an appeal to the discretionary power of the court to stay its officer upon the ground that he was attempting something so clearly beyond the power of the circuit court to grant and prejudicial to the estate he was appointed to collect, guard and distribute, that it was the duty of the appointing court to prevent the wrong,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Earling
...granting new remedies, unless such purpose is clearly shown. Goodrich v. The City of Milwaukee, 24 Wis. 422; Morgan v. South Milwaukee Lake View Co., 100 Wis. 465, 76 N.W. 354. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has recognized the right of creditors to enforce stockholders' liability imposed by......
-
Conway v. Joint Dist. No. 2
...created by or solely resting upon statute. Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, supra; Goodrich v. Milwaukee, 24 Wis. 422;Morgan v. South Milwaukee, etc., Co., 100 Wis. 465, 76 N. W. 354;Saxville v. Bartlett, 126 Wis. 655, 185 N. W. 1052;School Dist. 9 v. School Dist. 5, 118 Wis. 233, 95 N. W. 148. [4......
-
Town of Burke v. City of Madison
...voter. The motion for rehearing is denied, without costs. 1 (1928), 196 Wis. 562, 564, 221 N.W. 382.2 See Morgan v. South Milwaukee Lake View Co. (1898), 100 Wis. 465, 466, 76 N.W. 354; State ex rel. Martin v. Juneau (1941), 238 Wis. 564, 568, 300 N.W. 187, and 3 Sutherland Statutory Constr......
- State ex rel. Reed v. Bd. of Educ. of City of S. Milwaukee