PACIFIC RAILROAD OF MISSOURI
v.
KETCHUM
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Pacific Railroad of Missouri sought appointment of a receiver pending appeal after a foreclosure sale of its property, but the Supreme Court denied the motion because the pleadings failed to disclose the defense the railroad now sought to raise and the original decree had been entered by consent. The Court held that it would not appoint a receiver on appeal based on facts not presented in the lower court proceedings, as equity appeals are decided solely on the existing pleadings and proofs below.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of thé court.
Without ..^undertaking to decide whether a case may not arise in which we would exercise the power of appointing a receiver, pending an appeal in this court, we are' clearly of the opinion that we ought not to do so. upon the showing made here. -Appeals in equity are heard upon the pleadings and proofs below. No new evidence can be admitted, and the pleadings cannot be amended in this court.
In this case, the pleadings fail entirely to disclose the defence which the appellant seeks now to make, and it does appear affirmatively that the original decree was by consent. Although the sale was in form to the attorney of the appellant, it was in reality to the bondholders in whose interest the foreplosure was had. No irregularities in the sale itself except this are now complained of, and none whatever were insisted upon below.
Being entirely satisfied that the facts stated in the application for the rule are not sufficient to entitle* the plaintiff to the relief it asks, we refuse the rule. Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Otley, 116 F.2d 958 (9th Cir. 1940)…sdiction, it would be denied for several reasons. In the first place, it is doubtful whether this court has, in any case, the power to appoint a receiver in aid of its appellate jurisdiction or for any other purpose. See Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum, 95 U.S. 1, 2, 24 L.Ed. 347. Secondly, it is, doubtful whether, in this case, any valid appeal is pending. The pending appeals cannot be valid unless the purported judgment was appealable. At present we are strongly inclined to the view that the purported jud…
-
Gardner v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 746 (D.C. Cir. 1936)…which no tax has been paid — nor demanded — and was then engaged in the active distillation of his refuse oil. But in our opinion this motion must be denied, and we must decide the case upon the pleadings and proofs below. Pacific R. R. v. Ketchum, 95 U.S. 1, 24 L.Ed. 347. The new facts transpiring since the decision are in no respect like those noticed by the court in Meccano, Limited, v. Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 40 S.Ct. 463, 64 L.Ed. 822, [*748] and E. I. Du Pont, etc., Co. v. Richmond Guano Company…