Case Name: WENAR v. LEON L. SCHWARTZ, Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1907-06-17
Citations: 120 La. 1
Docket Number: No. 16,623
Parties: WENAR v. LEON L. SCHWARTZ, Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 1–7

Head Matter:
(44 South. 902.)
No. 16,623.
WENAR v. LEON L. SCHWARTZ, Limited.
(June 17, 1907.
On the Merits, Oct. 21, 1907.
On Rehearing, Nov. 18, 1907.)
1. Appeal — Transcript—Motion to Use.
A motion to use a transcript, already in this court, in order to perfect the transcript of an appeal in the same proceeding subsequently brought up, is in time, though made after a motion to dismiss the appeal, provided it be made, at the time of or before the argument and submission of such motion to dismiss.
2. Same — Intekest to Sustain.
Whether a stockholder of a corporation, said to be insolvent, -who has intervened pro interesse suo, after trial of the oppositions to the receiver’s account, has sufficient interest to sustain his appeal, is a matter that can be best determined after a hearing on the merits.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 2, Appeal and Error, § 921.]
On the Merits.
3. Appeal — Theory op Case — Chan ge in Argument.
The complaint set forth in the petition, and on which alone the case was tried, cannot be changed in argument in the Supreme Court to another; for instance, where the charge in the petition and on which the case was tried is a conspiracy to procure a sale to be made in block, instead of in detail, it cannot be changed in argument in the Supreme Court to that of a conspiracy to procure the sale to be made without appraisement.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 2, Appeal and Error, §§ 1053-1061.]
4. Assignments — Corporations — Insolvency-Purchase op Claims by Creditor.
No principle of law stands in the way of two or more creditors of an insolvent corporation clubbing their interests for buying up the other creditors at a reduced figure, or of their doing so through an interposed person and having such person thereafter champion the claims in court,, as if owner of them, in the course of the judicial settlement of the affairs of the corporation. What one may do one’s self one may do through an agent, and there is nothing fraudulent in buying up claims against an insolvent corporation and afterwards championing them in court.
5. Parties — Intervention.
An intervention, especially if it adds new grounds, comes too late after trial.
TEd. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig, vol. 37, Parties, § 69.]
6. Corporations — Insolvency — Rights op Stockholders.
Where a corporation is insolvent and in the hands of a receiver, one of its stockholders has no standing for interfering in the settlement of its affairs.
TEd. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 12, Corporations, § 2176.]
7. Appeal — Amendment op Judgment.
A judgment cannot be amended on appeal prejudicially to parties who are parties to it, but not to the appeal. Thus, where several separate oppositions to the final account of a receiver have been disposed of by one judgment, and the receiver has not appealed, and appeals have been taken in only some of the oppositions, the fee of the receiver, which was reduced at the instance of all the opponents, cannot be increased on the answer of the receiver to the appeals.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, §§ 4413, 4415.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George Henry Théard, Judge.
Action by Charles Wenar against Leon L. Schwartz, Limited. From a juagment rendered on a final account of the receiver, certain creditors appeal.
Affirmed.
See 41 South. 360, 117 La. 81.
Lazarus, Michel & Lazarus, for appellants. Frederic Charles Marx, for appellee receiver. Charles Rosen, for appellee, Wenar and I-Cohl-mann. William Stirling Parkerson, for ap-pellee State National Bank. Emile Joseph Méral, for appellee People’s Savings, Trust & Banking Co. Henry Garland Dupré, Asst. City Atty., Ernest Touro Floranee, Francis Charles Zaeharie, Arthur John Peters, Edgar Mayer Cahn, St. Clair Adams, Asst. City Atty., Charles J. Théard, Thilborger & Duffy and Edw. Martin Robbert, for other ap-pellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
MONROE, J.
Johnson, Boyd & Co., creditors, and Wm. Kohlmann, a stockholder, of Leon Schwartz & Co., Limited, having appealed from a judgment rendered on the final account of the receiver, the petitioning creditor moves to dismiss the appeals, on the grounds, as to the first, that no sufficient appeal bond was furnished and that the transcript is incomplete, and, as to the second, that the appellant is without interest (the corporation being wholly insolvent), that the appeal was applied for too late, and that the transcript is incomplete.
The certificate of the clerk reads,- in part:
"I, William B. Murphy, deputy clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing 220 pages do contain a true, correct, and complete transcript of all the proceedings had, documents filed, and evidence adduced upon the trial of the cause wherein Charles Wenar is plaintiff and Leon L. Schwartz, Limited, is defendant, instituted in this court, and now in the records thereof under No. 77.075 of the docket thereof, Division E, the Honorable George H. Théard, judge, from the 1st of March, 1906, to the 7th of May, 1907, with inclosure, copy inventory, filed April 6, 1905, is forwarded as filed, per stipulation filed May 7, 1907, copied in said transcript on page 220, and the present transcript, together with the one heretofore forwarded to the honorable the Supreme Court herein, does contain a correct and complete transcription of said cause."
It seems that a previous appeal in the same proceeding (though involving other issues) had been lodged in this court (Wenar v. Leon L. Schwartz, Ltd., 117 La. 81, 41 South. 360), and, after the motions now under consideration had been filed, appellants moved that the transcript in such previous appeal be consolidated, with and made part of the transcript of the present appeal. Appellee contends that the motion came too late; but we think not. It was filed, and the order to consolidate was made (without prejudice), before the motion to dismiss was submitted; the case differing, in that respect, from the case of Conery v. His Creditors, 116 La. 535, 40 South. 863, on which appellee relies.
Rule 1, § 8, p. 3, of the rules of this court (21 South, ix), provides that parties in interest prosecuting subsequent appeals "will be permitted, upon application to this court, to use transcripts in previous appeals when such appeals are branches of the same case, omitting from their copy the portions included in preceding transcripts." And Code Prae. art. 898, authorizes the correction of defects in transcript up to "the time of argument."
The objection to the bond filed by Johnson, Boyd & Co. is abandoned.
The petition of Kohlmann was denied by judgment signed April 5, 1907, and he applied for and was allowed a devolutive appeal on the following day. He had intervened pro interesse suo after the case had been tried, alleging that he was a stockholder in Leon L. Schwartz, Limited, charging a combination between the receiver and certain of the creditors, and praying that, after the payment of certain creditors, he be paid the amount ($2,500) of his stock subscription. Whether this demand has anything to rest on can best be determined after an 'examination of the case on the merits.
The motions to dismiss the appeals are ' therefore overruled.