U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1927

Krauthoff v. Compton

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided November 23, 1927

23 F.2d 73; 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3140 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Edwin A. Krauthoff, of Kansas City, Mo. (Bruce W. Sanborn, of St. Paul, Minn., W. F. Lilleston, of Wichita, Kan., Ernest D. Wilson, of Kansas City, Mo., Sanborn, Graves & Ordway, of St. Paul, Minn., and Vermilion, Evans, .Carey & Lilleston, of Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellant., Rhodes E. Cave, of St. Louis, Mo. (Herman M. Langworthy, of Kansas City, Mo., Thomas S. MePheeters and Bryan, Williams & Cave, all of St. Louis, Mo., and Lang-worthy, Spencer & Terrell, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Partridge v. St. Louis Joint Stock Land Bank of St. Louis (8th Cir. 1935)
Brusselback v. Chicago Joint Stock Land Bank (7th Cir. 1934)
Krauthoff v. Kansas City Joint-Stock Land Bank of Kansas City (8th Cir. 1929)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This suit is like those we have just considered and disposed of *74(Nos. 7874, 7875, 7939) 23 F.(2d) 71. It was brought by a creditor who owned bonds issued by Kansas City Joint-Stock Land Bank of Kansas City, Mo., in his own behalf and in behalf of all other creditors who might wish to join in the suit. The bill asks the court to appoint a receiver of the farm mortgages and United States government,bonds pledged with C. A. Ryker, registrar, as security for the payment of the bonds. Ryker resides at Wichita, Kan., and the suit was brought in that district because that was the situs of the property that appellant sought to have impounded in receivership. The ultimate relief sought was the same as that in the other eases. It was alleged that controversies would arise in settlement of the insolvent estate, that neither Compton nor the Federal Farm Loan Board which appoiiited him receiver could exercise judicial functions, that creditors of the bank and its stockholders had a constitutional right to have those controversies determined judicially as they arose, and the bill asks that the court take possession of the assets held by Ryker through a receiver to be appointed by it and then proceed to administer the estate. The bill was dismissed on motion of appellees.

The order of dismissal is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the other eases.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.