Twitchell v. Weil

49 P. 634, 6 Kan. App. 53, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 259
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedJuly 16, 1897
DocketNo. 227
StatusPublished

This text of 49 P. 634 (Twitchell v. Weil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Twitchell v. Weil, 49 P. 634, 6 Kan. App. 53, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 259 (kanctapp 1897).

Opinion

Wells, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the petition in error for several reasons, two of which must be sustained.

J. W. Lord was, by the court below, appointed receiver of the property of the Consolidated Iron Works Company, the principal defendant and debtor in the action. He was one of the necessary parties in this court. He died on November 20, 1896, and the action has not been revived in the name of his successor.

The Northrup Banking Company intervened in the cause in the court below, and, as its interests would be materially affected by a reversal herein, is a necessary party in this court. That company became insolvent about July 15, 1893, and A. B. Hovey has been appointed and is acting as receiver of it. He, [54]*54also, is a necessary party herein, and the cause has not been revived in his name.

Under the authority of Scannell v. Felton (57 Kan. 468, 46 Pac. Rep. 948), these receivers are necessary parties in this court, and in their absence the petition in error must be dismissed.

The petition in error is dismissed.

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

Related

Scannell v. Felton
46 P. 948 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 P. 634, 6 Kan. App. 53, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twitchell-v-weil-kanctapp-1897.