Schrage v. McCoy
| Decision Date | 27 February 1902 |
| Docket Number | 3,920 |
| Citation | 63 N.E. 50,28 Ind.App. 434 |
| Parties | SCHRAGE v. McCOY ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Lake Superior Court; H. B. Tuthill, Judge.
Action by Harry L. McCoy against George McCoy and others upon an account and for the appointment of a receiver. From a judgment denying the claims of Henry Schrage and others to an interest in funds in the hands of the receiver, the claimants appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
W. B. Reading, J. G. Erdlitz, B. F. Ibach and J. G. Ibach, for appellants.
It appears in the transcript of the record brought to this court that an action was brought in the court below by Harry L McCoy against George McCoy and William H. Penman, as partners, upon an account for labor, and for the appointment of a receiver; and that one George W. Lewis was appointed as receiver and qualified and took possession of the assets of the firm. The proceedings in the receivership are set out in the transcript. Attached to the transcript are two assignments of errors and one assignment of cross-errors. First, there is an assignment of errors by Henry Schrage interpleader, as appellant, against George McCoy, William H Penman, and Harry L. McCoy as appellees, the assignment containing two specifications of alleged errors, the first of which is not discussed. The second is as follows: "Said superior court erred in each of the following conclusions of law on its special findings of facts entered on the 30th day of June, 1899, to wit, conclusions numbered first, second third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth."
The record shows that "the claim" of Henry Schrage was submitted to the court for trial, and that after hearing the evidence the court, at the request of the Standard Steel and Iron Company, one of the interpleading plaintiffs, and of the receiver, rendered a special finding, stating ten conclusions of law upon the facts specially found. In accordance with its conclusions, the court rendered judgment setting aside its order theretofore made for the payment of a certain sum to Henry Schrage, and ordering him to pay that sum to the clerk, and adjudging that such sum be distributed by the clerk, a certain portion thereof to Henry L. McCoy, another portion to Augusta Witt, executrix, another portion to Paxton Lumber Company, and the residue, after payment of costs, to "the general creditors as mentioned in the foregoing conclusions of law; and the balance, if any remains thereafter, shall be paid to said partners, Penman and McCoy, in equal parts."
The exception to the conclusions of law was in the following form: "The interpleader, Henry Schrage excepts to the foregoing conclusions of law". The exception was taken to all the conclusions of law jointly. The assignment of errors is directed against each of them severally, and not against all of them jointly....
To continue reading
Request your trial