Siney v. New York Consolidated Stage Co.
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order changing the receiver. This action was brought by John Siney for substantially the same causes as the action brought by Smith and Kerr against the same defendants, in the New York Common Pleas, the proceedings in which are reported Ante, 419. This suit was commenced on the 24th day of December, and on the same day Mr. Schell was by consent of parties appointed receiver, the court directing, however, that the plaintiffs in the Smith and Kerr suits should…
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order changing the receiver. This action was brought by John Siney for substantially the same causes as the action brought by Smith and Kerr against the same defendants, in the New York Common Pleas, the proceedings in which are reported Ante, 419. This suit was commenced on the 24th day of December, and on the same day Mr. Schell was by consent of parties appointed receiver, the court directing, however, that the plaintiffs in the Smith and Kerr suits should be heard before Mr. Schell entered upon the execution of his duties. After hearing the counsel for Smith and Kerr, the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Clerke, J.
It is not necessary to consider whether Kerr and Smith have a right to be heard on this- appeal. Both the plaintiff and defendants, being alike dissatisfied with the order of the special term, have appealed. They bring the matter to the cognizance of the general term, and, if it is appealable at all, the court has entire control of the matter on appeal.
But this is not an appealable order. Before the person who was, in the first instance, appointed receiver, entered on his duties, and, indeed, before the appointment was consummated by the filing of the requisite bond,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State ex rel. Sullivan v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Miller v. Lehman, Durr & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Wehrs v. SullivanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Shainwald v. LewisDistrict Court, D. California · 1881