Yerington times. [volume] (Yerington, Nev.) 1907-1932, 1914-03-14

the Attorney General rested the case
not in any of its provisions, as held in
the prevailing opinion, authorize the
Attorney General to intervene on be-
half of the creditors. Whatever rights
the Attorney General has under that
Act, is as the representative of the
State.
The prevailing opinion also holds
that the notice to creditors was in
sufficient and void and, hence, that
the orders in question were merely
ex parte orders. No question was or
could be raised on the appeal as to
the sufficiency of the notice to credi-
tors and stockholders but it was vir
tually admitted that the notice as to
them was sufficient. Similar notices
Esmeralda county cases recently de-
cided No person other than credi
tor or a stakeholder could question
the suficiency of the published no
tees as affecting their rights In the
absence of the sufficiency of these no
tees being so questioned, 1t is with
out the province of this Court to CON
slider the same. This is in accordance
with an established rule that has no
exception that | am aware of. The
Attorney General could question the
- t1,a ,>,,h1i cd nc
giving legal notice to the State, if the
State had an interest in the matter as
contended, but that is as far as the
Acknowledgement could go or has
sought to go. If these orders were
void because of the character of the
published notices, then there must
have been a great many void orders
entered in the various bank receiver
ships pending in different district
courts during the past seven years.
The third ground of the notice of
motion to set aside the orders fixing
the compensation of the receiver and
his attorneys, quoted and referred to
in the prevailing opinion, has no place
in the case on appeal. The record
does not show it was relied on in
the court below, and it could not be
relied on in this court upon the rec
ord as presented and was not relied
on or even referred to in the briefs or
oral argument.
The prevailing opinion says: AT
the time the orders fixing the com
pensation were made there was no
statute authorizing the Attorney Gen
eral to oppose them nor providing
that he should be served with notice
of these motions" This argument is
an adverse ruling upon the sole con-
tention of the Acknowledgement made
upon the hearing on appeal and is
the only proposition of law in the pre-
vailing opinion with which | concur
The learned Chief Justice avoids the
effect of this ruling by holding, con
trary to the views of all the counsel
in the case, that the Act of 1913 author
lied the Attorney General to appear
in the receivership proceedings "on
behalf of the creditors" The Attor
ney- General did not appear on behalf
of the creditors but appeared on be
half of the plaintiff-the State on the
relation of the Bank Commissioner
in the original action and he then
claimed and still claims no right to
appear in the proceedings except by
virtue of the banking act of 1907, un-
der which the action against the State
Bank was instituted and the judgment
entered.
am unable to see the force of the
reasoning to be found in the concur
ring opinion of my learned associates
The law of receiverships is well set
tied. A receiver is entitled to a rea-
sonable compensation for his services
to be fixed by the Court If a Court
should refuse to fix any compensation
Their is a way open to compel it to do
so. The intercession of the State
could add nothing to the power that
exists in any interested party to take
appropriate action If the Court or
dered too great or too little compensa-
ton, ample remedy under the law now
exists and always has existed to cor
rect such errors, which do not rise to
the dignity of requiring the exercise
of the police power of State to
remedy.