Rouse v. Hornsby

Decision Date23 March 1896
Docket NumberNo. 706,706
Citation161 U.S. 588,16 S.Ct. 610,40 L.Ed. 817
PartiesROUSE v. HORNSBY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

James Hagerman and T. N. Sedgwick, for plaintiff in error.

Nelson Case, for defendant in error.

Mr., chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

The Mercantile Trust Company, a corporation of New York, filed its bill against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, a corporation of Kansas, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas, for the foreclosure of certain mortgages, and Eddy and Cross were appointed receivers, upon whose decease Rouse was substituted.

Under a general order, to which he refers, but which is not given in the record, Hornsby filed a petition of intervention in that suit, seeking damages for injuries inflicted through the negligence of the receivers in the operation of the road. To this petition the defendants interposed a demurrer upon the ground that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was sustained, and the petition dismissed, whereupon the case was carried to the circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit, the judgment reversed, and the case remanded. Hornsby v. Eddy, 12 U. S App. 404, 5 C. C. A. 560, and 56 Fed. 461. Thereupon defendants answered on the merits, and the intervener replied. Defendants moved the court for a reference to a master, 'which motion,' the record states, 'to refer the claim of John E. Hornsby against them as set forth in the intervening petition of said Hornsby and the issues joined thereon to a master,' was overruled. A jury was then impaneled on motion of the intervener, a trial had, and verdict returned, whereupon the court entered an order in these words, after setting out the verdict:

'And thereupon the court doth now approve said verdict, and order and adjudge that the said intervener, John E. Hornsby, have and recover of and from the said defendants, George A. Eddy and Harrison C. Cross, as receivers of the property of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from this date, and also all costs herein expended by him, amounting to $_____; and the property of said Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company which was heretofore in the hands of said receivers, and over which this court now holds jurisdiction, shall remain liable for said sum and sums, and said receivers are hereby ordered to allow, audit, and pay said sum and sums into the registry of this court for said intervener, John E. Hornsby; and if said receivers as such have not sufficient funds in their possession and under their control for that purpose, the property of said railway company remain liable therefor,—to which orders and judgment of the court the said defendants, George A. Eddy and Harrison C. Cross, as such receivers, at the time excepted. It is further ordered that the said defendants, George A. Eddy and Harrison C. Cross, as such receivers, have sixty days from this date in which to prepare and present a bill of exceptions herein for allowance, and that execution in this case be stayed ten days from this date.'

The petition of intervention, the answer, and the various orders were all entitled in the case of The Mercantile Trust Company of New York v. The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company et al. From the final order of the court defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat Bank of San Francisco
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1926
    ...of which the receivers were acting in virtue of authority conferred on them as officers of the Alaska court. Rouse v. Hornsby, 16 S. Ct. 610, 161 U. S. 588, 590, 40 L. Ed. 817. As all this is apparent from the face of the bill, and as the removal is not challenged here, we think the presump......
  • Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Foreman
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1938
    ...S.Ct. 1024, 44 L.Ed. 337. See, also Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593, 12 S.Ct. 905, 36 L.Ed. 829; Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U.S. 588, 16 S.Ct. 610, 40 L.Ed. 817; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 S. Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055; Jewett v. Whitcomb, C.C., 69 F. 41......
  • Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Foreman
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1938
    ... ... 723, 44 L.Ed. 337, 20 S.Ct. 1024. See, also, Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593, 12 ... S.Ct. 905, 36 L.Ed. 829; Rouse v. Hornsby, ... 161 U.S. 588, 16 S.Ct. 610, 40 L.Ed. 817; C., R ... I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 ... S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed ... ...
  • Smithson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1898
    ...of nonresidence, and because the action was to recover against them as receivers of a federal court. Texas v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593; Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U.S. 588; White v. Ewing, 159 U.S. 36. The cause of action as between plaintiff and the receivers was separable in the sense of the removal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT