Hanon & Sons v. Weil Bros.
Mississippi Supreme Court
Motion in the supreme court. In this case, pending in the chancery court of Lauder-dale county, an appeal, with supersedeas, was granted by Chancellor S. Evans, from an interlocutory order made by him in vacation, by which a receiver, appointed at the instance of appellants, was removed, and the property in his possession ordered to be restored to appellees, upon the execution by them of a forthcoming boud.
Read the full summary
Motion in the supreme court. In this case, pending in the chancery court of Lauder-dale county, an appeal, with supersedeas, was granted by Chancellor S. Evans, from an interlocutory order made by him in vacation, by which a receiver, appointed at the instance of appellants, was removed, and the property in his possession ordered to be restored to appellees, upon the execution by them of a forthcoming boud. This motion is made by appellees, under § 1421, code 1880, to discharge the supersedeas.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
An appeal does not lie from an order of a chancellor, vacating the appointment of a receiver, absolutely or conditionally, and directing a return of property to the person from whom it was taken. This is not a change of the possession of property, within the contemplation of § 2311 of the code. It is mei’ely a restoration of the 'status quo as existing before the appointment of the receiver. The refusal to appoint a re-, ceiver may not be appealed from, and the removal of the receiver is not appealable.
Motion to discharge the supersedeas is sustained.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Popp v. Daisy Gold Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1900
- Pearson v. KendrickMississippi Supreme Court · 1896