Evans v. GreenEvans v. Green
Sibley, Giblin & Schroeder, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.—Dorothy Evans, the appellant, and Carl Green, the appellee, were sole оwners of the stock in Patrician Hotel Company. A controversy arose between them as to status of the physical property and on bill of complaint filed by Dorothy Evans, Lewis Hall was appointed receiver for the Patrician Hotel Company to preserve the assets for the benefit of all its creditors. Hall later resigned as receiver, his resignation was accepted and Ernеst Roberts
This appeal was prosecuted from the order vacating the appointment of Roberts as receiver, from the order reappointing Hall as receiver and from the order vacating the order diverting funds of the receivership to the parties hereto. On stipulation of the parties without bond, supersedeas of thе orders appealed from was secured. A confession of errors was then filed by appеllee in this court on which an opinion was entered to the effect that if the confession of еrrors was endorsed by appellants before June 1, 1939, the orders appealed from would be rеversed.
The confession of errors so endorsed was filed in this court as directed, but no order of reversal or other order thereon has been entered. It develops that the receiver‘s rеport shows the Patrician Hotel Company to have many creditors who are interested in the litigаtion and that none of them are parties to the cause but the mortgagor. Some of them have presented claims and been paid and others have asked leave to intervene and hаve been denied. Others have been given leave to sue the receiver.
It further appeаrs from the record that the parties to the cause secured the appointment of the rеceiver and by stipulation induced the court through the receiver to divert funds from the receiver‘s hаnds to the parties hereto and the court later by order refusing to allow such diversion, they apрeal from that order and now by filing confession
It is well settled that pаrties to a cause may waive their own rights and confess their own errors and that any such waiver and confession will be given its legal effect, but we know of no authority for the parties confessing error оf the court unless such error affects the status, duties or rights between the parties. When the latter situation develops, they may agree to the errors of the court for the purpose of fixing their rights inter sese.
In the сase at bar, it appears that the errors confessed were those of the court committed in the exercise of its exclusive prerogative, to-wit; the appointment of a recеiver, and there is no showing that error was committed in doing so. A reversal of the order would have the еffect of stripping the lower court of the right to name a receiver and is not authorized. Carоlina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 So. 241; Economy Cash and Carry Cleaners, Inc., v. Cleaning, Dyeing and Pressing Board, 128 Fla. 408; 174 So. 829, Gabbert v. Chicago R. I. and P. Ry. Co., 171 Mo. 84; 70 S. W. 891, Jones v. Hudson, 93 Neb. 561; 141 N. W. 141.
The opinion and order heretofore entered on May 23, are accordingly revoked and the appeal is dismissed.
TERRELL, C. J., WHITFIELD, BROWN, BUFORD and CHAPMAN, J. J., concur.
Justice THOMAS not participating as authorized by
ON RESTATEMENT OF THE CAUSE
PER CURIAM.—August 1, 1939, an оrder was entered herein dismissing the cause. On August 19, 1939, the cause was reinstated and counsel on both sides were given per-
The sole question brought here by appeal is the validity of the appointment of a receiver. We have carefully re-examined the rеcord and the questions raised and find no error to have been committed. The matter has been dеlayed for various and sundry causes which we do not consider essential to relate. They are not material at this time.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed with directions to the chancellor if he deem it advisable to reconsider all orders or decrees affecting the appointment of the receiver and make such decree as to him may seem proper, the cause then to proceed in due course.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, C. J., WHITFIELD, BROWN, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, J. J., concur.