TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad v. Soutter

Milwaukee and Minnesota Railroad Co. v. Soutter

Milwaukee & Minn. R.R. v. Soutter, 154 U.S. 540 (1864)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 23, 1864
Docket
No. 267
Judges
Nelson
Citations
154 U.S. 54014 S. Ct. 11581864 U.S. LEXIS 400
Syllabus
The removal or appointment of a receiver rests in the sound discretion of the court making the order, and is not revisable here.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. The case is stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Nelson

Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the court below overruling a motion on the part of the Milwaukee and Minnesota Railroad Company, the appellants, to remove the receiver in possession of the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad, and put the petitioners in the possession and control of the eastern division, extending from Milwaukee to Portage; and which order overruled, also, an application in behalf of the applicants to remove the Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company from the possession nd control qf this division, which had been given to them by a previous order of the court, under date of June 12, 1863. These applications by the appellants were made in a suit of foreclosure of what is known as the second mortgage upon the road given to secure the bondholders.

A receiver had been appointed in the cause at the instance of the complainants, and his powers were subsequently modified by the court, so as to let in the Milwaukee and St. Paul Company to run the road and manage its affairs under the direction of the court.

*541 Mr. M. II. Carpenter for appellants.

Mr. N. A. Cowdry and Mr. N. J. Emmons for appellee.

A decree had been rendered by the court in the foreclosure suit, previous to thesé motions, in favor of the complainants, from which they had taken an appeal, and which appeal, as has been decided at this term, had the effect to suspend the execution of the decree of the court below and all proceedings under it, except such as might be necessary for the preservation and security of the subject of litigation. But without inquiring whether the court below, after the appeal, had any authority to entertain the motions of the appellant, it is sufficient to say the order made in disposing of them is not the. subject of an appeal. The removal or appointment of a receiver, which, in effect, was the object of the motions, rested in the sound discretion of the court, and the decision is not revisable here.

We should add that the decision already given in this cause at the present'term, holding that the foreclosure suit pending in the District Court at the passage of the act extending the circuit court system to the State of Wisconsin, transferred it to the jurisdiction of the Circuit, is, of itself, conclusive against this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1908: 11909: 11911: 11915: 11918: 11932: 11942: 11944: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Skirvin v. Mesta141 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1944)
  2. Maxwell v. Enterprise Wall Paper Mfg. Co.131 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1942)
  3. State ex rel. Sullivan v. Reynolds107 S.W. 487 (Mo. 1908)
  4. Ellis v. Penn Beef Co.80 A. 666 (Del. Ch. 1911)
  5. Nicholson v. Western Loan & Building Co.60 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1932)
  6. Wehrs v. Sullivan116 S.W. 1104 (Mo. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Skirvin v. Mesta141 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1944)
  2. Maxwell v. Enterprise Wall Paper Mfg. Co.131 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1942)
  3. Nicholson v. Western Loan & Building Co.60 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1932)
  4. Ward v. Central Trust Co.252 F. 127 (7th Cir. 1918)
  5. In re the Estate of Lutted22 Haw. 712 (1915)
  6. Ellis v. Penn Beef Co.80 A. 666 (Del. Ch. 1911)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list