Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., No. 4704.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtALSCHULER and EVANS, Circuit , and WILKERSON
Citation61 F.2d 27
Decision Date12 October 1932
Docket NumberNo. 4704.
PartiesZECHIEL et al. v. FIREMEN'S FUND INS. CO.

61 F.2d 27 (1932)

ZECHIEL et al.
v.
FIREMEN'S FUND INS.
CO.

No. 4704.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 15, 1932.

Rehearing Denied October 12, 1932.


61 F.2d 28

William W. Hammond, C. Severin Buschmann, Leo M. Gardner, and Chester L. Zechiel, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant.

Burke G. Slaymaker, of Indianapolis, Ind. (Slaymaker, Merrell & Locke, of Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel), for appellee.

Before ALSCHULER and EVANS, Circuit Judges, and WILKERSON, District Judge.

EVANS, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The two questions determinative of the appeal are:

(1) Does the complaint state the facts upon which appellee relies for its attack upon the order appointing the receiver?

(2) May a defendant in an action brought against him by a receiver of a copartnership, upon leave of the court which appointed the receiver in another action at the instance of a contract creditor, challenge the validity of the receiver's appointment?

Both of these questions we answer in the negative.

(1) The complaint in the instant case does not disclose the facts upon which appellee relies to support its demurrer. The court can not assume from the statement that "he was appointed as receiver * * * in an action by Lewis Meier & Company, a corporate creditor, against said Edward Traugott and Harry Sussman, * * *" that Lewis Meier & Company was a simple contract creditor rather than a lien or judgment creditor. For in construing the above allegation, we are required to look also to the first clause of the sentence which reads that he "is the duly qualified and acting receiver of the partnership assets of Edward Traugott & Company, * * *." Reading the two clauses together, the court must, as against a demurrer, construe them to mean that Lewis Meier & Company was such a creditor as could institute the receivership proceedings against the partnership. Among the numerous decisions which have passed upon and construed language similar to that before us, is the case of Spinney v. Hall et al., 49 Ind. App. 502, 97 N. E. 571, 572. There the court said:

"It appears from the complaint that the Newton circuit court appointed appellees * * * as receivers of the Goodland Bank. It was a court of general jurisdiction, and, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, we must indulge the presumption that the proceedings were regular; that it had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and of the parties in interest. Roberts v. Leutzke, 39 Ind. App. 577, 78 N. E. 635; American, etc., Ins. Co. v. Mason, 159 Ind. 15, 64 N. E. 525; Runner v. Scott, 150 Ind. 441, 50 N. E. 479; Boyer v. Robertson, 149 Ind. 74, 48 N. E. 7; Davis v. Taylor, 140 Ind. 439, 39 N. E. 551; Nichols v. State, 127 Ind. 406, 26 N. E. 839. This presumption in favor of the order of the court appointing said receivers, and it further appearing that they duly qualified and as such receivers commenced this action, was a sufficient showing that all the proceedings in that case leading up to their appointment were regular."

Other decisions to the same effect are: Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U. S. 233, 9 S. Ct. 279, 280, 32 L. Ed. 686; Commonwealth v. Chase, 127 Mass. 7, 13; Lethbridge v. City of New York, 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 486, 15 N. Y. S. 562; Rockwell v. Merwin, 45 N. Y. 166, 167; Bowden v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 51 Fla. 152, 41 So. 400, 7 Ann. Cas. 859; Edwardson v. Garnhart, 56 Mo. at page 86; Albright v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 22 F.(2d) 832 (D. C.); 19 Corpus Juris, at page 833.

In Robertson v. Perkins, supra, the rule is stated thus:

"The allegation of the complaint in this case is, that the plaintiff `duly made and filed due and timely protest in writing,' and `duly appealed to the secretary of the treasury,' and 'that ninety days have not elapsed since the decision of the secretary of the treasury on the aforesaid appeal.' * * * In Lorillard v. Clyde, 86 N. Y. 384, the complaint alleged that, in pursuance of a certain agreement, a corporation `was duly organized under the laws of this state.' It was contended, on a demurrer to the complaint, that the agreement was illegal, because * * *. But the court held that the allegation that a corporation was `duly organized under the laws of this state,' pursuant to the agreement, imported that the requisite number of persons united for that purpose; that it must be assumed that the corporation was regularly organized; and that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to show in his complaint the precise steps taken to accomplish that result. The word `duly' means 'in a proper way, or regularly, or according to law.'"

61 F.2d 29

(2) Inasmuch as counsel for appellant have conceded, or at least written their briefs on the assumption, that the Lewis Meier & Company was a simple contract creditor which brought its action to obtain a judgment and which, before judgment, secured the appointment of appellant as receiver of the partnership, it is deemed advisable to also dispose of the second question. By so doing we may avoid the possibility of a second appeal.

In disposing of this question, it becomes necessary to examine the Indiana Statute (Burns' Ind. Stats. 1926, § 1300) and the decisions of the appellate courts of Indiana thereon. The parties agree that the Marion Superior Court was a court of general equity jurisdiction — a court whose original jurisdiction was concurrent with the Circuit Court of said county.

Disposition of this second question turns upon the determination of two further questions: (a) Is the order appointing a receiver of an individual by an Indiana court of equity upon an action of a simple contract creditor absolutely void? (b) Does the fact that the debtor defendants composed a copartnership differentiate the case?

The legal question presented is one of jurisdiction.

It is, as it must be, under the authorities, assumed that orders appointing receivers upon the application of a simple contract creditor, no other facts appearing, are erroneously entered and will be vacated and set aside on appeal. Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz, 262 U. S. 77, 85, 43 S. Ct. 480, 483, 67 L. Ed. 871; Davis v. Hayden, 238 F. 734 (C. C. A. 4); Hogsett v. Thompson, 258 Pa. 85, 101 A. 941; Slow v. Ohio Valley Roofing Co., 198 Ind. 190, 152 N. E. 820; State v. Union Nat. Bank of Muncie, 145 Ind. 537, 44 N. E. 585, 57 Am. St. Rep. 209.

In the case of Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz, supra, the Supreme Court said:

"In the Karatz Case (C. C. A.) 280 F. 532 the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Andrews v. Andrews & Andrews, No. 1991.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • November 17, 1942
    ...4 Cir., 184 F. 311, 106 C.C.A. 453; Woodhouse v. Burling, 64 App.D.C. 196, 76 F.2d 446; Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 27, certiorari denied Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Zechiel, 53 S.Ct. 387, 288 U.S. 602, 77 L.Ed. 978; Central West Public Service Co. v. Craig, 70 F.2d 4......
  • United States v. Debrow, No. 14087
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 15, 1953
    ...law." Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U.S. 233, 236, 9 S.Ct. 279, 280, 32 L.Ed. 686; followed in Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Insurance Co., 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 27. "Duly sworn" means a swearing according to law. 13 Words & Phrases, p. 627. The name and authority5 of the officer who administered the oat......
  • Haverell Distrib.s, Inc. v. Haverell Mfg. Corp., No. 17266.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 19, 1944
    ...acknowledged. The word ‘duly’ means in a proper way, or regularly, or according to law. Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 27. Acknowledgments, likewise, are of statutory origin and, as pertaining to instruments of the character here presented, there is no statutory c......
  • Miller v. Hagie, 2259
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 31, 1943
    ...proposed said Torrington-Van Tassell Road where claims have been filed to the best of our ability." In Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 61 F.2d 27, the opinion takes an excerpt from Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U.S. 233, 9 S.Ct. 279, 32 L.Ed. 686 which in turn quotes from the New York Court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Andrews v. Andrews & Andrews, No. 1991.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • November 17, 1942
    ...4 Cir., 184 F. 311, 106 C.C.A. 453; Woodhouse v. Burling, 64 App.D.C. 196, 76 F.2d 446; Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 27, certiorari denied Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Zechiel, 53 S.Ct. 387, 288 U.S. 602, 77 L.Ed. 978; Central West Public Service Co. v. Craig, 70 F.2d 4......
  • United States v. Debrow, No. 14087
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 15, 1953
    ...Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U.S. 233, 236, 9 S.Ct. 279, 280, 32 L.Ed. 686; followed in Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Insurance Co., 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 27. "Duly sworn" means a swearing according to law. 13 Words & Phrases, p. 627. The name and authority5 of the officer who administered......
  • Haverell Distrib.s, Inc. v. Haverell Mfg. Corp., No. 17266.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 19, 1944
    ...acknowledged. The word ‘duly’ means in a proper way, or regularly, or according to law. Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 27. Acknowledgments, likewise, are of statutory origin and, as pertaining to instruments of the character here presented, there is no statutory c......
  • Miller v. Hagie, 2259
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 31, 1943
    ...said Torrington-Van Tassell Road where claims have been filed to the best of our ability." In Zechiel v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 61 F.2d 27, the opinion takes an excerpt from Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U.S. 233, 9 S.Ct. 279, 32 L.Ed. 686 which in turn quotes from the New York Court of ......
  • 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