Case Name: SAXON v. SOUTHWESTERN BRICK & TILE MFG. CO., Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1904-06-20
Citations: 113 La. 637
Docket Number: No. 15,269
Parties: SAXON v. SOUTHWESTERN BRICK & TILE MFG. CO., Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 637–641

Head Matter:
(37 South. 540.)
No. 15,269.
SAXON v. SOUTHWESTERN BRICK & TILE MFG. CO., Limited.
(June 20, 1904.
On the Merits, Nov. 21, 1904.)
APPEAL — DISMISSAL — CORPORATIONS—RECEIVES —APPOINTMENT—PLEADING.
1. Motion to dismiss comes too late if filed more than three days after the filing of the transcript.
On the Merits.
2. Under paragraph 8, § 1, Act No. 159, p. 313, Acts 1898, providing for the appointment, of receivers over corporations, the- plaintiff should set forth his demand as in ordinary suits. A mere allegation that petitioner is a “creditor” is not sufficient. The appointment of a receiver is ancillary to the suit.
3. Under said paragraph, the resolution of the board of directors furnishes evidence that the corporation “is unable to meet its obligations as they mature, and that a receiver is necessary to preserve and administer its assets for the benefit of all concerned.” A resolution that “a receiver be appointed” does not conform to the requirements of the statute. •
4. The president of a corporation has no au- ' thority, as such, to consent to the appointment
of a receiver, and to waive legal notices and delays.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; John St. Paul, Judge.
Action by Walter L. Saxon against the Southwestern Brick & Tile Manufacturing Company, Limited. From an order appointing a receiver, Francis Bruseau and T. H. Bradley, interveners, appeal.
Reversed.
Edmund Castlereagh Kelly, for appellants. Charles F. Fletchinger, for appellee Saxon. Lyle Saxon, for appellee Southwestern Brick & Tile Mfg. Co. Fred. C. Marx, for appellee Stewart.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver. The appellants aver themselves to be stockholders and creditors of the defendant corporation.
The transcript was filed in this court on May 23, 1904. On May 26th all parties to the appeal joined in a motion to place the case on the preference docket. On May 27th a motion to dismiss was filed, based on the alleged ground that one of the appellants was estopped from appealing, he having acquiesced in the resolution of the board of directors of the defendant corporation for the placing of the company in the hands of a receiver, and that the other appellant should not be considered a party to the appeal, because he has failed to make the affidavit required by section 4, Act No. 159, p. 314, Acts 1898, to be made in such eases. On the 31st of May an additional motion to dismiss .was filed, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order appointing a receiver in a case of this character, as the proper remedy is by petition to vacate the appointment of the receiver; and on the further ground that the motion for the appeal does not disclose wherein appellants are aggrieved by the order appealed from.
These motions to dismiss were filed more than three days after the filing of the transcript, and therefore too late. Code Prac art. 886; Webb v. Keller, 39 La. Ann. 55, 1 South. 423; Holbrook v. Holbrook, 32 La. Ann. 13; De St. Romes v. Press Co., 31 La. Ann. 224; Bienvenu v. Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 209; West v. Davis, 34 La. Ann. 357.
Furthermore, motion to dismiss will not lie when appellee has fixed the case for trial. Creevy v. Breedlove, 12 La. Ann. 745; Golden v. Board, 34 La. Ann. 354.
The motion to dismiss is denied.