Case Name: In re Moss Cigar Company, Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1898-01-24
Citations: 50 La. Ann. 789
Docket Number: No. 12,711
Parties: In re Moss Cigar Company, Limited.
Judges: Nicholls, C. J., dissents.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 789–794

Head Matter:
No. 12,711.
In re Moss Cigar Company, Limited.
Where an.exj>arte order is granted appointing a receiver, it is not the proper practice for a complaining creditor to appeal directly from such order.
The correct course to pursue is for such creditor to appear in the cause and move that the order be vacated and set aside, or take a rule to set aside and vacate, aud if the motion he refused, or the rule denied, to appeal from the decision and such appeal, if suspensive, would stay further proceedings in the receivership and hold matters in statu quo pending the appeal.
On Rwheaking.
Appeal by creditor, whose claim exceeds two thousand dollars, from order appointing receiver and staying proceedings against insolvent corporation. Motion to dismiss appeal on ground that assets of corporation do not equal two thousand dollars in value — Held: That the question of jurisdiction is determined by amount of creditor’s claim on which the right of action is suspended rather than by the sum of the assets as shown by the scheduls.
Further motion to dismiss, on ground that the appeal will not lie from order appointing receiver as herein made — Held: The appeal does lie, differentiating the case from Brewing Company vs. Judge, 46 An. 100, and Harrod vs. Sewerage Company, 49 An. 1595.
There is no direct authority of law for appointment of receiver as herein made and for the order staying proceeding against the corporation, and the facts and exigencies of the casé do not bring it within the category of cases where, under their inherent powers, such appointments have been made by the courts in aid of their jurisdiction or as as a conservatory process incidental to a main demand.
Appeal from the Civil District Oourt for the Parish of Orleans.
Théard, J., of Division E, acting for Monroe, J., Division 0, now absent.
Solomon Wolff for Receiver, Appellee.
E. Evariste Moise for Gonzales, Mora & Oo., Creditors, Appellants.
Submitted on briefs on motion to dismiss January 10, 1898.
Opinion handed down January 24, 1898.
Rehearing granted March 7, 1898.
Reargued and resubmitted April 5, 1898.
Opinion on rehearing handed down April 18, 1898.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered.by
Blanchard, J.
The Moss Oigar Company, Limited, presented a petition to the District Court setting forth that its capital stock was greatly impaired by reason of losses incurred in the conduct of its business, its credit weakened and its condition insolvent. It represented that its creditors were pressing for payment of their claims, and a multiplicity of suits was threatened. It exhibited schedules of its assets and liabilities, which show its insolvent condition. It averred that the interest of all concerned would be best subserved by the appointment of a receiver to take charge of its affairs. It prayed for the appointment of such receiver, for an inventory and appraisement of its assets, and that all proceedings against the corporation and its property be stayed.
It annexed to its petition what purported to be telegrams and letters from its directors and stockholders consenting to the proceedings taken.
Upon this showing, the District Judge made an order appointing William Moss receiver, fixed the bond he was to give at two thousand dollars, directed an inventory of the property of the concern to be taken, appointed a notary to take the same, and appraisers to fix the value of the property, and decreed that all proceedings against the corporation and its property be stayed.
About six weeks later Gonzalez, Mora & Co. appeared in the case, represented they were creditors of the Cigar Company in an amount exceeding two thousand dollars, suggested to the court that the order hereinbefore set forth contained error to their prejudice, and moved for a devolutive appeal therefrom, returnable to this court.
An order of appeal was granted, the bond given and the appeal is before us.
It is met here by a motion to dismiss on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materise, and that an appeal will not lie from an order appointing a receiver as herein made.
We express no opinion on the ground first averred.
That last averred is fatal to the appeal.
It may be the order sought to be appealed from is improvident and without warrant; that there is no basis for it in fact or in law; that it ought to be set aside and vacated.
These are matters we will not pass on now. They should be first presented to the court granting the order in a motion, or on rule taken to vacate.
It will be time enough for this court to pass on them when they come here in the regular way by appeal from the judgment on the motion or rule to vacate.
Such was the practice commended, and the rule laid down in regard to ex parte orders like the present one, in State ex rel. Brittin vs. City, 43 La. An. 831; State ex rel. Brewing Co. vs. Judge, 46 La. An. 100; Harrod vs. Sewerage Co., 49 La. An. (decided December 13, 1897, not yet reported).
Some difficulty suggests itself in this, that should a creditor, or other interested party, objecting to the ex parte order appointing a receiver, take a rule to vacate such order and judgment goes against him thereon and he appeals suspensively, would such appeal operate to suspend further proceedings under the order appointing the receiver? We hold that it would; that pending the appeal further proceedings in the receivership would be stayed and matters held in statu quo.
The motion to dismiss must prevail.
And it is ordered that the appeal herein taken be dismissed, reserving to appellants the right by appropriate pleas in the court a qua to test the sufficiency and legality of the order complained of.
Nicholls, C. J., dissents.
Miller, J., dissenting in separate opinion.