Georgia Coast & P. R. v. Lowenthal

Fifth Circuit

Georgia Coast & P. R. v. Lowenthal

238 F. 795, 151 C.C.A. 645, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1270

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1917

DocketNo. 2986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 F. 795 (Georgia Coast & P. R. v. Lowenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Georgia Coast & P. R. v. Lowenthal, 238 F. 795, 151 C.C.A. 645, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1270 (5th Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver. The errors assigned cover the propositions that the court is without jurisdiction:

First. Because the amount involved is less than $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs;

Second. Because in the showing made by the bill the Columbia Trust Company, trustee in the mortgage covering the whole property including the bonds of complainant, is an indispensable party defendant, and if made a party defendant the court would be without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, for the reason that the said plaintiff and the Columbia Trust Company are both citizens and residents of the state of New York, and the requisite diversity of citizenship necessary to give the court jurisdiction would not exist.

Third. That on the facts stated in the bill and the showing made by the parties there was no case made calling for the appointment of a receiver.

On the question of jurisdiction, the District Judge handed down an elaborate opinion in the case, maintaining the jurisdiction of the court in both aspects as presented. While not prepared to concur fully in all of the reasons given by the learned judge, a majority of the judges of this court concur with him in his conclusions. In our opinion, if the said trustee is an indispensable party, and should hereafter appear or be made, a party, the said trustee will necessarily, by reason of interest, be aligned with the plaintiff. Under the showing made by the bill and by evidence before the court, there seems to be no question that, if the court retains jurisdiction, the appointment of the receiver was not only proper, but necessary. '

The decree appealed from is affirmed,

WARKER, Circuit Judge, not concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver. The errors assigned cover the propositions that the court is without jurisdiction:

First. Because the amount involved is less than $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs;

Second. Because in the showing made by the bill the Columbia Trust Company, trustee in the mortgage covering the whole property including the bonds of complainant, is an indispensable party defendant, and if made a party defendant the court would be without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, for the reason that the said plaintiff and the Columbia Trust Company are both citizens and residents of the state of New York, and the requisite diversity of citizenship necessary to give the court jurisdiction would not exist.

Third. That on the facts stated in the bill and the showing made by the parties there was no case made calling for the appointment of a receiver.

On the question of jurisdiction, the District Judge handed down an elaborate opinion in the case, maintaining the jurisdiction of the court in both aspects as presented. While not prepared to concur fully in all of the reasons given by the learned judge, a majority of the judges of this court concur with him in his conclusions. In our opinion, if the said trustee is an indispensable party, and should hereafter appear or be made, a party, the said trustee will necessarily, by reason of interest, be aligned with the plaintiff. Under the showing made by the bill and by evidence before the court, there seems to be no question that, if the court retains jurisdiction, the appointment of the receiver was not only proper, but necessary. '

The decree appealed from is affirmed,

WARKER, Circuit Judge, not concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 F. 795, 151 C.C.A. 645, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-coast-p-r-v-lowenthal-ca5-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack