Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum
Supreme Court of the United States
Motion by tbe appellant for a rule upon tbe appellee to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed pending the ap- ■ peal in this court. In this cause, a decree of foreclosure and sale was entered in' the Circuit Court July 6,1876, by consent of the present appellant corporation. Pursuant to this decree, the property was sold to James Baker, who, as is alleged, was at the time the’ solicitor of the company.
Read the full summary
Motion by tbe appellant for a rule upon tbe appellee to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed pending the ap- ■ peal in this court. In this cause, a decree of foreclosure and sale was entered in' the Circuit Court July 6,1876, by consent of the present appellant corporation. Pursuant to this decree, the property was sold to James Baker, who, as is alleged, was at the time the’ solicitor of the company. The answer filed by him for the appellant admitted all the allegations' in the bill, and made no defence whatever against the foreclosure. This was authorized by the'then directors…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
Without ..^undertaking to decide whether a case may not *3arise in which we would exercise the power of appointing a receiver, pending an appeal in this court, we are' clearly of the opinion that we ought not to do so. upon the showing made here. -Appeals in equity are heard upon the pleadings and proofs below. No new evidence can be admitted, and the pleadings cannot be amended in this court.
In this case, the pleadings fail entirely to disclose the defence which the appellant seeks now to make, and it does appear affirmatively that the original decree was by consent. Although the sale was in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Burget v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1903
- United States v. OtleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. KetchumSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Coleman v. FisherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898