Root v. Mills, 1,477.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Citation | 168 F. 688 |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1909 |
| Parties | ROOT et al. v. MILLS et al. |
| Docket Number | 1,477. |
168 F. 688
ROOT et al.
v.
MILLS et al.
No. 1,477.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
January 5, 1909
Rehearing Denied February 19, 1909.
B. H. Canby and A. W. Hope, for appellants.
James P. Dawson, for appellees.
Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.
GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge.
The bill in the court below asked that appellants, trustees under the will of Augustin K. Root and executors thereof, be removed, and that pending action of the court upon such bill, a receiver be appointed to take charge of the assets of the estate until other trustees might be appointed. The bill was filed October 25, 1907, and upon the same day, upon an ex parte hearing, a receiver was appointed, who took possession of the property therein named.
November 2d, following, the defendants by their solicitors, moved the court to so modify the foregoing order that, pending the final determination of the case, the trustees might be permitted to collect, receive [168 F. 689] and distribute to the parties entitled thereto under the will, the income of the securities belonging to the estate; which motion was, on the 9th day of November following, after argument of counsel, duly denied, the defendants on the preceding day having entered their general appearance in the cause.
December 5th, following, defendants filed their motion to discharge the receiver and dissolve the injunction (an injunction merely incidental to the receivership), which motion was overruled on the 21st day of February, 1908; and thereupon, on the 2d day of March following, defendants filed their application for appeal. The motion under consideration is to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that it was not taken within thirty days after the entry of the decree appealed from.
Section 7 of the Act approved April 14, 1906 (34 Stat. 116, c. 1627 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 209)) provides:
'That where upon a hearing in equity in a district or in a circuit court, or by a judge thereof in vacation, an injunction shall be granted or continued, or a receiver appointed, by an interlocutory order or decree, in any case, an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing such injunction, or appointing such receiver, to the Circuit Court of Appeals provided that the appeal must be taken within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree, and it shall take precedence in the appellate court.'
This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marion Mortgage Co. v. Edmunds, No. 6818.
...C. A.) 156 F. 328, 334, and a negative one in Pacific Northwest Packing Co. v. Allen (C. C. A.) 109 F. 515, and Root v. Mills (C. C. A.) 168 F. 688. An appeal from such an order was upheld in Re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536, 21 S. Ct. 468, 45 L. Ed. 657, with no discussion of its ex parte charac......
-
Miller v. Pyrites Co., No. 3647.
...Company (C. C. A.) 252 F. 965; Talbot v. Mason (C. C. A.) 125 F. 101; Albright v. Oyster (C. C. A.) 60 F. 644; Root v. Mills (C. C. A.) 168 F. 688. The Millers in their petition asking leave to intervene set up that it was desirable to have a receiver appointed for the Silica Gel Corporatio......
-
Maxwell v. Enterprise Wall Paper Mfg. Co., No. 8156.
...opinion. --------Notes: 1 28 U.S.C.A. § 227. 2 Dreutzer v. Frankfort Land Co., 6 Cir., 1895, 65 F. 642, 646; Root v. Mills, 7 Cir., 1909, 168 F. 688, 690; Pacific Northwest Packing Co. v. Allen, 9 Cir., 1901, 109 F. 515, 3 Haight & Freese Co. v. Weiss, 1 Cir., 1907, 156 F. 328, 334, certior......
-
American Grain Separator Co. v. Twin City Separator Co., 3,760.
...evidence, the arguments of counsel, the other proceedings at that time upon which the order is based and the order itself. Root v. Mills, 168 F. 688, 689, 94 C.C.A. 174, 175; Taylor v. Breese, 163 F. 678, 684, 90 C.C.A. 558, 564. The order refusing to dissolve the injunction was made upon s......
-
Marion Mortgage Co. v. Edmunds, No. 6818.
...C. A.) 156 F. 328, 334, and a negative one in Pacific Northwest Packing Co. v. Allen (C. C. A.) 109 F. 515, and Root v. Mills (C. C. A.) 168 F. 688. An appeal from such an order was upheld in Re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536, 21 S. Ct. 468, 45 L. Ed. 657, with no discussion of its ex parte charac......
-
Miller v. Pyrites Co., No. 3647.
...Company (C. C. A.) 252 F. 965; Talbot v. Mason (C. C. A.) 125 F. 101; Albright v. Oyster (C. C. A.) 60 F. 644; Root v. Mills (C. C. A.) 168 F. 688. The Millers in their petition asking leave to intervene set up that it was desirable to have a receiver appointed for the Silica Gel Corporatio......
-
Maxwell v. Enterprise Wall Paper Mfg. Co., No. 8156.
...opinion. --------Notes: 1 28 U.S.C.A. § 227. 2 Dreutzer v. Frankfort Land Co., 6 Cir., 1895, 65 F. 642, 646; Root v. Mills, 7 Cir., 1909, 168 F. 688, 690; Pacific Northwest Packing Co. v. Allen, 9 Cir., 1901, 109 F. 515, 3 Haight & Freese Co. v. Weiss, 1 Cir., 1907, 156 F. 328, 334, certior......
-
American Grain Separator Co. v. Twin City Separator Co., 3,760.
...evidence, the arguments of counsel, the other proceedings at that time upon which the order is based and the order itself. Root v. Mills, 168 F. 688, 689, 94 C.C.A. 174, 175; Taylor v. Breese, 163 F. 678, 684, 90 C.C.A. 558, 564. The order refusing to dissolve the injunction was made upon s......