Case ID: f_186/html/0158-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SWIFT FERTILIZER WORKS et al. v. OKOLONA COTTON OIL CO. et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 7, 1911.)
    No. 2,141.
    Appeal and Error (§ 5) — Writ op Error — When Improper.
    A decree in chancery cannot be reviewed on writ of error.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 8-21; Dee. Dig. § 5.]
    In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for th.e Northern District of Mississippi.
    Action by E. Van Winkle Gib & Machine Company against J. W; Taylor and another. The Swift Fertilizer Works and others bring error, adversely to the Okolona Cotton Oil Company and others, from a decree confirming a master’s report on their petition of intervention.
    Writ of error dismissed.
    W. J. Eamb, for plaintiffs in error.
    , T. D. Young, for defendants in error.
    Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

In the equity suit pending in the Circuit Court entitled E. Van Winkle Gib & Machine Co. v. J. W. Taylor and TishT omingo Savings Institution, wherein the court took possession of large blocks of property and appointed a receiver, the Swift Fertilizer Company and other creditors intervened, asserting a prior lien on proceeds arising from the sale of certain property in the hands of the receiver. This petition of intervention was referred to a master, who reported adversely thereto. Petitioners then filed exceptions, and they were overruled and the master’s report was confirmed.

From this decree the Swift Fertilizer Company and others sued out this writ of error, assigning errors as follows: (1) Said master’s report and the said decree of the court erred in its conclusion as to the facts and the law touching the rights of the petitioners. (2) The special master’s report and the decree of the court erred in its finding of the facts as disclosed in the record, and the law covering the same, in finding and reporting against the allowance and payment of the petitioner’s claim. ,

A writ of error is not the appropriate mode of bringing up for review a decree in chancery. McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61, 11 L. Ed, 179; Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 621, 22 L. Ed. 429; Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121, 26 L. Ed. 95.

The writ of error is dismissed, with costs.