Madigan v. Dollar Building & Loan Co.

OPINION

By BÁRNES, J.

Counsel for plaintiff seems to be laboring under the impression that the proceedings in error are directed to the defendant Nigl, assignee’s motion to discharge the suit, whereas defendant Nigl, assignee, insists that the order complained of- is the appointment of a receiver in the Common Pleas Court.

There should be no difficulty in accepting the theory of the defendant Nigl, assignee.

In the first place there is a very serious question if the overruling of a motion to discharge a receiver is a final order from which error may be prosecuted.

Neighbors et v Thistle Down…