Hinckley v. Gilman, Clinton, & Springfield Railroad
Hinckley v. Gilman, Clinton, and Springfield Railroad Company
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The motion to dismiss cannot be sustained.
In Blossom v. Railroad Company, 1 Wall. 655 , a bidder at a foreclosure sale was allowed to appeal, and in delivering the opinion of the court Mr. Justice Miller said: — • “ It is certainly true that he cannot' appeal from the original decree of foreclosure, nor from any other order or decree of the court made prior to his bid. It, however, seems to be well settled, that, after a decree adjudicating certain rights between the parties to a suit, other, persons having no previous interest in the • litigation may become connected with the case in the course of the subsequent proeeedings„iu such a manner as to subject them to the jurisdiction of the court, and render them liable to its orders; and that they may in like manner acquire rights in regard to the subject-matter of the litigation, which the court is bound to protect.”
*469 This seems to us to be decisive of this motion. The receiver cannot and does not attempt to appeal from the decree of foreclosure, or from any order or decree of the court, except such as relates to the settlement of his accounts. To that extent he has been subjected to the jurisdiction of the court, and made liable to its orders and decrees. He has, therefore, the corresponding right to contend against all claims made against him. For this purpose he occupies the position of a party to the suit, although an officer of the court, and after the final decree below has the right to his appeal here. In this case, the final decree has been given, and the case is properly here upon the.appeal as prayed and allowed. This will not keep any thing in litigation but the receiver’s accounts. The title to the property and the possession under the sale cannot be in any manner affected. Every thing can be closed up in the court below, in accordance with the decree which has been entered in the cause, except the distribution of the money claimed from the receiver.
It will be time enough to consider whether more of the record has been brought here than is necessary to the hearing of the questions presented by the appeal when the cause is reached, or when application is made to us in that behalf.
Motion to dismiss denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 41 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Devlin v. Scardelletti
- Rector v. United States
- Cordoza v. Pacific States Steel Corp.
- M. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board
- Eldon T. Cordoza, Bruce Train Hans Lemcke Theodore Sorensen Passco Administrative Services, Inc. Passco Development, LLC v. Pacific States Steel Corporation, and Rust Remedial Services Holding Company, Inc. Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Union City, Real Parties in Interest- . Eldon T. Cordoza John Franco Theodore Kutsuki Santos Mora Eugene Luna Ray Seccombe, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bruce Train, Rust Remedial Services Holding Company, Inc. Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Union City, Real Parties in Interest-
- City of San Benito v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co.
Most recent
- Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Nicolas Muzin
- M. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board
- Dale Roush, Individually and as Trustee of the Dale Roush Assets Trust v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Joel Hart
- Raley ex rel. C.G. v. Hyundai Motor Co.
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Enterprise Trust Co.
- SEC v. Enterprise Trust Company
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.