Rockwell v. Portland Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 10 July 1899
• Citation: 35 Or. 303,57 P. 903
• Parties: ROCKWELL v. PORTLAND SAV. BANK.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

57 P. 903

35 Or. 303

ROCKWELL v. PORTLAND SAV. BANK.

Supreme Court of Oregon

July 10, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; J.B. Cleland, Judge.

Suit by Cleveland Rockwell to wind up the affairs of the Portland Savings Bank. The United States Mortgage & Trust Company filed a petition against the receiver of the bank, and, from a decree dismissing the petition, appeals. Motion by plaintiff to dismiss the appeal. Denied.

Wallace McCamant, for appellant.

J.M Gearin, for receiver.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal. In November of 1894 the plaintiff, a stockholder in the defendant bank, instituted a suit in behalf of himself and other stockholders for the purpose of dissolving the corporation, and winding up its business; and, pending the suit, a receiver was appointed. On September 8, 1897, a dividend of 5 per cent. was declared and the receiver directed to distribute the same among the creditors of the bank; and on December 23, 1898, another dividend of 4 per cent. was declared and ordered paid as before. On December 24, 1898, the United States Mortgage &amp Trust Company of New York filed its petition in said cause showing that it was a creditor of the defendant bank in the sum of $150,000, which principal sum would become due and payable October 4, 1899; that the same was secured by a mortgage upon real property of the bank; that the claim had been duly presented to the receiver, with the request that he list the same as one of the valid debts of the defendant bank, but that he had refused to comply therewith. The prayer is that the receiver be required to list said claim, and treat the petitioner as one of the creditors of the defendant bank, and that it be permitted to participate in the dividends theretofore declared and to the thereafter declared and distributed. Upon the trial on the petition the court below dismissed the same, and denied in toto the relief prayed for, and gave a decree against the petitioner for the costs of the proceeding, from which it appeals to this court. The plaintiff now moves to dismiss the appeal upon several grounds, but relies, in the main, upon the one that such order or decree is not appealable. Preliminary to the hearing of this motion the trust company suggested a diminution of the record for the purpose of having certain papers added to the transcript, with a view of showing the nature of the suit in which the receiver was...