The Kansas Rolling Mill Company v. The Atchison
| Decision Date | 01 July 1883 |
| Citation | 31 Kan. 90,1 P. 274 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE KANSAS ROLLING MILL COMPANY v. THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY |
Error from Wyandotte District Court.
ACTION by The Railroad Company against The Rolling Mill Company, to recover $ 7,051 24/100, alleged to be due on an account. March 21, 1883, the plaintiff obtained from Hon. Wm. R Wagstaff, judge of the district court, at chambers, an order appointing a receiver for the property and business of the defendant company, which order the judge afterward modified but refused to vacate. The defendant brings this order here for review.
Case dismissed.
Stevens & Stevens, C. W. Blair, and J. Brumback, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. R Peck, and A. A. Hurd, for defendant in error.
HORTON, C. J.
OPINION
This is a petition in error brought to this court for the purpose of reversing an order of the judge of the district court of Wyandotte county, made at chambers, appointing a receiver for the property and business of the Kansas Rolling Mill Company. In the case of Hottenstein v. Conrad, 5 Kan. 249, it was held that such an order is not reviewable by the supreme court; but the plaintiff in error, the Kansas Rolling Mill Company, challenges that decision, and claims that under the peculiar provisions of §§ 542 and 543 of the civil code, the preliminary or interlocutory order, as the case may be, appointing a receiver is "a final order," and therefore reviewable by the supreme court as such. Now if such an order is reviewable because it is "a final order," and no authority can be found in the statutes or elsewhere making it reviewable for any other reason, then an order that "discharges, vacates, or modifies a provisional remedy, or grants, refuses, vacates, or modifies an injunction" would also and by the same reasoning be "a final order," and for that reason alone be reviewable by the supreme court; and the legislature would be chargeable with the inexcusable folly of enacting "First," that "a final order," (including these orders,) should be reviewable in the supreme court, and then in the same section enacting, "Second," and specifically that these orders should be thus reviewable. The reasoning of the plaintiff in error will include these orders as "final orders," and make them reviewable in the supreme court as final orders, as well the order appointing a receiver.
The decision in the case of Hottenstein v. Conrad was made in 1869, and has remained unchallenged up to the present time, fourteen years, and we do not think that this court ought now to disturb it. If the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells v. Shriver
...v. Hoover. 8 Kan. 124: A., T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Brown. 26 Kan. 443; Anderson v. Commercial Bank, 27 Kan. 161; The Kansas R. M. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 31 Kan. 90, 1 P. 274: Miller v. Noyes, 34 Kan. 13, 7 P. 602: Anderson v. Higgins, 35 Kan. 201, 10 P. 570; Burch v. Adams, 40 Kan. 639......
-
City of Ogden City v. Bear Lake & River Water-Works & Irrigation Co.
... ... Irrigation Company and others for injunction and equitable ... relief. From ... 467; Hottenstein v. Conrad, ... 5 Kan. 249; Rolling Mill Co. v. R. R. Co., 31 Kan ... 90; Johnson v. Hanner, ... ...
-
Wells v. Shriver
... ... Mill & Elevator Co. v ... Bruce, 77 Okl. 113, 186 P. 940, ... 32 Kan. 528, 4 P. 1013; Kermeyer v. Kansas P. Ry ... Co., 18 Kan. 215 ... "A final judgment from ... rolling stock in order that the same might be sold ... 3. That he ... the lease, and a transfer of the management of the company to ... a receiver. The language of Mr. Justice McLean in ... ...
-
Robinson v. Miracle
...modify, or extend the order of appointment or its terms. Wells v. Shriver, 81 Okla. 108, 197 P. 460; Kansas Rolling Mill Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Kan.) 31 Kan. 90, 1 P. 274; Shaffer v. Tyrrell, 58 Okla. 15, 158 P. 626. Until he has refused to vacate his appointment, this court may not......