In Re Receivership of Southwestern Minnesota Land Co.

Two appeals by stockholders from orders assessing them on their stockholders’ liability. An extended discussion is not warranted either of the facts or of the law. Appellants cannot in this proceeding question the orders appointing the receiver because of the insufficiency of the facts to support them. That sort of an attack should be made in opposition to the appointment or directly by a motion to vacate it. Greenfield v. Hill City L. L. & L. Co. 141 Minn. 393, 170 N. W. 343. The same observation applies to a defect in the form of the bond of the receiver. That is also something to be got at…