State ex rel. Gaiser v. King
Decision Date | 01 January 1894 |
Docket Number | 11,330 |
Citation | 14 So. 902,46 La.Ann. 110 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE EX REL. WILLIAM GAISER v. FRED. D. KING, JUDGE |
APPLICATION for Mandamus and Prohibition.
Henry P. Dart and F. B. Thomas, for the Relator.
Horace E. Upton and Lazarus, Moore & Luce, contra.
The Algiers Brewing Company is a corporation organized under the general incorporation laws of the State.
There exists against it mortgages and unsecured debts in an amount in excess of its assets.
It is alleged that the management was characterized by waste extravagance and recklessness; that the mortgage bonds of the company were sold by the company at the rate of fifty cents on the dollar, in accordance with a combination entered into between the management of the company and certain persons named; that there are a number of suits pending against it and the entire plant was under seizure in the suit of August Borman vs. The Algiers Brewing Company, to satisfy a debt of $ 333.35, and advertised for sale, and that part of the machinery had been sequestered; also a number of mules of the company. That members of the board of directors, acting with certain stockholders, had combined and conspired to obtain possession of the entire plant in settlement of bonded indebtedness under consent proceedings to be instituted in another court.
The Lafayette Bank of St. Louis filed in the court a qua a suit for the appointment of a receiver to the Algiers Brewing Company.
The district judge in appointing the receiver, on the application made, states, as reason, that the sale of an important part of the machinery necessary to conduct the business of the brewery will operate to the injury of all concerned.
That it is a proper case for the exercise of the equitable powers of the court in the interest of all the creditors.
And he directed the receiver to take charge of the property; to inventory it, and report to the court, within ten days, the property owned by the company, together with an appraisement; that he take oath to discharge the duties required and furnish bond in a stated amount.
The sheriff was directed to suspend the sale under the execution issued until the further orders of the court; the receiver was authorized to take possession of the property seized and of the property sequestered, without prejudice to the rights of the respective plaintiffs, and to retain possession until the further order of court.
In support of his action in issuing the above order, the respondent returns that the Lafayette Bank of St. Louis filed in the court over which he presides, in the suit of that bank against the Algiers Brewing Company, a certified copy of the bill of the Tinker & Smith Malting Company vs. Algiers Brewing Company, praying for the appointment of a receiver by the Federal court, which bill was verified by the oath of their solicitor, together with the resolution of the Algiers Brewing Company passed on the 20th of August, 1893, at a meeting at which the relator, as a director of the company, was present and voted for the appointment of a receiver.
Demonstrating the absolute necessity, advisability and prudence of the appointment of a receiver for the administration of the affairs of that brewing company, the solicitor in the answer before that court alleged, "for further answer respondent says that it believes the true interest of all the creditors, secured and unsecured, as well as the stockholders of said company, requires the appointment of a receiver."
That subsequently the board of directors of the Algiers Brewing Company adopted a resolution recognizing the necessity for the appointment of a receiver and approved the appointment that had been made by the respondent. The relator as a director took part in the meeting and voted for the approval as adopted by the board.
A creditor for a large amount and several bondholders intervened and opposed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. General Am. Cas. Co.
...of the corporation, and is meant to preserve and not to cause injury either to the creditors or to the corporation. State [ex rel. Gaiser] v. King, 46 La.Ann. 110, 14 So. 902. His taking over of the property brings about no change of title and cannot prejudice the rights of any creditor. He......
-
Receivership of Bryce Cash Store, Inc.
... ... the laws of this State except through execution." ... In ... other words, counsel for ... either to the creditors or to the corporation. State v ... King, 46 La.Ann. 110, 14 So. 902. His taking over of the ... property brings ... ...
-
Ex parte West
... ... When this has been accomplished by the ... prisoner, the state should introduce evidence to sustain the ... commitment. Ex parte ... ...
-
Ex parte Charleston
... ... Collins v. State, 78 Ala. 434; Smith v ... State, 73 Ala. 11. The habeas corpus statute ... ...