Case Name: GOTTLIEB-KNOX-AMISS INS. AGENCY, Limited, et al. v. HENRY COHN, JR., CO., Limited et al. In re KAHN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1910-05-23
Citations: 128 La. 697
Docket Number: No. 18,117
Parties: GOTTLIEB-KNOX-AMISS INS. AGENCY, Limited, et al. v. HENRY COHN, JR., CO., Limited et al. In re KAHN.
Judges: SOMMER VILLE, J., takes no part herein.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 697–707

Head Matter:
(55 South. 21.)
No. 18,117.
GOTTLIEB-KNOX-AMISS INS. AGENCY, Limited, et al. v. HENRY COHN, JR., CO., Limited et al. In re KAHN.
(May 23, 1910.
On the Merits April 24, 1911.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 382*) — Bonds— Suspensive Appeal Bond.
In cases where article 575, C. P., fixing the amount of the suspensive appeal bond at one-half over and above the amount of the judgment, is inapplicable, the amount of the bond for suspensive appeal must be_ fixed _by_ the judge; otherwise such appeal will be dismissed for want of a bond.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 382.*]
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On the Merits.
2. Evidence (§ 368*) — Production—Compelling Production op Books — Disobedience op Subpcena Duces Tecum — Effect.
Code Prac. art. 340, empowers the court, at the request of a party, to require the other party to bring into court books in his possession which are material in the cause, provided the party requesting their production declares in writing and on oath what are the facts he intends to establish by such books, and that on refusal of the party to comply with the order the facts stated and sworn to shall be considered as confessed, in the absence of a satisfactory showing of the impossibility of producing the books. Held, that nothing can be taken for confessed upon failure to respond to such a subpoena, except the facts specifically stated in the njotion or petition therefor; and, where no facts were stated in the subpoena or in the motion asking for its issuance, a judgment founded solely upon the taking of the subpcena for confessed was rendered without evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Dee. Dig. § 368.*]
3. Receivers (§ 201*) — Account— Sufficiency.
An account of a receiver of a mercantile company, showing the total of each day’s sales of goods by the receiver authorized by the court to sell the goods at not less than their inventory value, was not insufficient for failing to show the identity of the goods sold, or the price at which sold; such information being contained in the books; and there being no suggestion that the books were not properly kept, or that they would not furnish the information.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Receivers, Gent. Dig. § 402; Dec. Dig. § 201.*]
4. Receivers (§ 199*) — Accounts—Grounds of Opposition.
That the account of the receiver of a mercantile company allows compensation to the receiver for carrying on the business is no ground for requiring another account to be filed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Receivers,Dec. Dig. § 199.*]
5. Receivers (§ 201*) — Accounts—Grounds of Opposition.
An account of a receiver of a mercantile company, giving the amount of each separate payment in the expense account, to whom and for what made, and its date, is sufficiently definite and particular.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Receivers, Cent. Dig. § 402; Dec. Dig. § 201.*]
6. Receivers (§ 202*) — Accounts—Grounds of Opposition.
An objection to the account of a receiver of a mercantile company that the receiver had no authority to conduct a going business, instead of at once winding up the affairs of the company, and an objection to the commission allowed the sheriff in the account, constitute no grounds for requiring a new account to be filed, as such new account could not possibly show anything new in that connection.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Receivers, Dec. Dig. § 202.*]
7. Receivers (§ 202*) — Accounts—Grounds of Opposition.
Objections to the account filed that, though the receiver took credit therein for an amount paid for the produce tax on certain cotton, she did not account for any cotton, where the account was silent as to any cotton to be accounted for; that the receiver took credit for insurance premiums claimed to have been paid; that the books of the company^ showed that the receiver was indebted to it in a certain sum and showed another debt to the company, and that the final account should not be homologated until such debts should have been collected, or every effort made to collect them; that an allowance to an attorney of the receiver was excessive, and that the receiver’s commission should not be paid, because the receiver was herself indebted to the receivership — are not valid grounds for requiring another account, but sim ply reasons why the account already filed should not be approved.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Receivers, Dec. Dig. § 202.*]
8. Receivers (§ 202*) — Accounts — Objections.
A ground of opposition to a receiver’s account, that “Your opponents oppose each and every item on said account and the homologation thereof for the reason that the same are not clearly and intelligently stated, showing fully what they represent,” is a mere general allegation, not pointing out the respect in which the account is not clear and intelligible, and is insufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Receivers, Dec. Dig. § 202.*]
Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of West Baton Rouge; L. B. Claiborne, Judge.
Final accounting of Mrs. Mathilde Kahn, receiver of the Henry Cohn, Jr., Company, Limited, to which Gottlieb-Knox-Amiss Insurance Agency, Limited, and others filed opposition. From a judgment on the opposition, rejecting the receiver’s account, she appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Albin Provosty, for appellant. Francis J. Whitehead, Albert L. Grace, and Benj. B. Taylor, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
MONROE, J.
Mrs. Mathilde Kahn was appointed receiver of the defendant corporation, and in due time, filed her final account, which was opposed by J. F. Budd Shoe Company. On January 17, 1910, there was judgment on said opposition, decreeing that the account so filed "be rejected and set aside, and that the said receiver be ordered to file, within thirty days, a full, complete, and detailed account of her gestión from Sept. 14, 1908, the date of her appointment to date." On motion of the receiver, through her counsel, an order of appeal from the judgment so rendered was granted, reading, in part, as follows:
"It is ordered that the accountant, Mrs. Mathilde Kahn, be granted an appeal from the judgment rendered herein, in the alternative, suspensive and devolutive, upon the said accountant furnishing bond, with good and solvent security, conditioned according to law, in the sum of $200, for a devolutive appeal, and according to law, for a suspensive appeal."
The appellant having given bond in the-sum of $200 and having lodged the appeal in this court, the appellee moves to dismiss "the suspensive appeal," on the grounds that the bond given is not sufficient to sustain it, and that there has been no order fixing the amount of the bond for a suspensive appeal. The motion must be sustained:
"In cases where article 575, C. P., fixing the amount of the suspensive appeal bond at one-half over and above the amount of the judgment, is inapplicable, the amount of the bond for suspensive appeal must be fixed by the judge, as would have to be done if the appeal were devolutive; and, where it is not done, the appeal must be dismissed for want of a bond."
Day v. Bailey (syllabus) 116 La. 961, 41 South. 223.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal herein, in so far as it is suiiposed to operate suspensively, be dismissed.