Farmers National Bank v. Backus
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Order of this court upon the petition of Charles W. Burdic, defendant and appellant, requiring James A. Owens, receiver, to show cause why "'he should not turn over to said defendant the possession of certain real •estate ánd why said defendant should not he granted such other and further relief as to the court might seem meet and proper. An appeal removes a case wholly to the appellate court. Elliott, App.
Read the full summary
Order of this court upon the petition of Charles W. Burdic, defendant and appellant, requiring James A. Owens, receiver, to show cause why "'he should not turn over to said defendant the possession of certain real •estate ánd why said defendant should not he granted such other and further relief as to the court might seem meet and proper. An appeal removes a case wholly to the appellate court. Elliott, App. Proc. § 541, and cases cited in note 1; Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. 548; Ensminger v. Powers, 108 TJ. S. 292, 2 Sup. Ct. 643; Thornton v. Mahoney, 24 Cal. 569. If the appeal be from an…
1Opinion of the Court
COLLINS, J.2
Order to show cause why a receiver of certain real! property, in possession, should not he required to turn over and deliver such possession to appellant, Burdic, pending the determination of an appeal taken to the court from an order appointing such-receiver. The nature of the main action may be seen by reference to State v. Egan, 62 Minn. 280, 64 N. W. 813, in which we held that such', order was appealable.
Immediately upon the making and filing of the order in the court below, and before an appeal was taken, the receiver named entered' into possession of the premises involved,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Blondheim v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1857
- Hutchings v. Commercial Bank of DanvilleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895
- Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. Park Hotel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1869
- In re Real Estate AssociatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Home Savings & Trust Co. v. District Court of Pole CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Jacobs v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Forrester & MacGinniss v. Boston & Montana Consol. Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1899
- Tornanses v. MelsingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- State Ex Rel. Claude v. District Court Fourth Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.