Hicks v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hicks v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile

140 So. 882, 224 Ala. 494, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 105

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 7, 1932

Docket4 Div. 632.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 So. 882 (Hicks v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hicks v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile, 140 So. 882, 224 Ala. 494, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 105 (Ala. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

This appeal is from an order or decree of the court directing the receiver to pay over to the appellee, a creditor, its pro rata share of a dividend from the assets of the insolvent Elba Bank & Trust Company. In other words, the decree does not affect the receiver personally, and is a mere determination of the relative rights of creditors of the insolvent bank, and does not involve an increase or diminution of the assets as a whole.

It has been held by this court as well as the weight of authority that a receiver in such a case cannot appeal from such a decree rendered by a court appointing him without first obtaining leave of the court to do so. Unless given authority, a receiver cannot appeal from a decree allowing the claim of a creditor, as he has no interest in the distribution. Cobbs, Rec., v. Vizard Inv. Co., 182 Ala. 372, 62 So. 730, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 801; Cobbs v. Cook, 182 Ala. 331, 62 So. 729; Coffey v. Gay, 191 Ala. 137, 67 So. 681, L. R. A. 1915D, 802, and note.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

Appeal dismissed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J.

This appeal is from an order or decree of the court directing the receiver to pay over to the appellee, a creditor, its pro rata share of a dividend from the assets of the insolvent Elba Bank & Trust Company. In other words, the decree does not affect the receiver personally, and is a mere determination of the relative rights of creditors of the insolvent bank, and does not involve an increase or diminution of the assets as a whole.

It has been held by this court as well as the weight of authority that a receiver in such a case cannot appeal from such a decree rendered by a court appointing him without first obtaining leave of the court to do so. Unless given authority, a receiver cannot appeal from a decree allowing the claim of a creditor, as he has no interest in the distribution. Cobbs, Rec., v. Vizard Inv. Co., 182 Ala. 372, 62 So. 730, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 801; Cobbs v. Cook, 182 Ala. 331, 62 So. 729; Coffey v. Gay, 191 Ala. 137, 67 So. 681, L. R. A. 1915D, 802, and note.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

Appeal dismissed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 882, 224 Ala. 494, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-first-nat-bank-of-mobile-ala-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack