Show APPEAL DISMISSED Sopremi Coon Decision In a Bavtr city Case DEFENDANT WAS KOI SEUVEU Bilk a Notice o Appeal Which the Carl Stir llulili Ih Fast Ibe Supreme court handed down an pinion today In toe cue ol Nellie T Itolir plaintiff and respondent TI bY 1 Stanley Ueleudaul and Sarah H Ihimpson el al appellants dIsmIssIng lila at pnal The partita ill resIde at Bearer and be cue wai appealed from tbe Second dlttrlci Stanley a > rscslvir ol the partner alp at Thompson Brother Sarah H fbompson n administratrix ol tbc relate ol E W Thompson Jr aod Sarah a Thompson were made dc endaula In l an uctloo to ferieloss a mortgage executed by E W Tbomp on Jr slice UtceaieJ to 12 W 1hompiou fir old mortgage hay IUK bieu given to itcuro the payment of a III000 note doe 10 > lx mouths alttr dale By Imont Ibo note was s > me time later taken up and cancelled and another an-other given for 2620 lecured by the same mortgage ai given on the first ole The lead thou mortgaged belonged be-longed to lbs partnership of Tbomp son Broltaert bought wIth pirlnersblp lund bni the title thereto wu given In Ibe IndlTldual name of E W rbompion The money was mod lo he pailnerihlp business and the debt was regarded by tbe arm at a parta er nip debt Some lime later E W Thompson Jr died and bli widow Sarah B Tbompion wai appointed admlnli retrlx ol tbe eitate Stanley wu appointed receiver 01 Inc flol COd eseeis ol lets thompson partner hip The note and mortgage was traniferieii by the Kluer rbompua to Nellie T Riobe who sued the receiver for Ibe principal of the note sad Intereil I A demurrer wu filed lj tbe complaint by defendant defend-ant Siren S Tbompion woe later withdrew ltwben judgment was gIven plilntm by default for Ibo principal the note bOlsfet end ojiti The decree de-cree ordered tbe tale ot tbe properly cad that In Caea bare wa a oIlonoy Judgment should b entered for lbs amount les l against the Oefendant Sarah S Thompson From this judgment judg-ment MM Thompson appealed both rMI br idEb ha her right ai the wile 1 of E 7 W Thompson Jr end lu tbe capacIty of administratrix of her bubo entile The atloroeyi for reipondent chal caged the Hand of lbs appellant lu cut and md a motIon to dlwl be appeal claImIng that W B Stan Iy the codelendant was not served wIlt a uotloe of appeal When be was the neceieary party to the suIt by rsasua ot the plnorbll In tamest Ills holds Ibal thIs oeItioma COUl roIIO was sound aud nyil I It li I apparent from the facts above J rr f elated tbit tbd receiver I was a necessary and proper party to the unit fly allowing allow-ing a default1 Io ° be entered It was admitted at alleged In the complaint that the money was borrowed tor tbe use of the partnership and that the debt secured by the mortgage and lor which the mortgage was foreclosed was In realUy partnership obligation The mortgage property belonged to the partnership I Under these clroamstincei I may be troj that the receiver was aallsfled with the Judgment which directed di-rected the sale of Ibe properly and relieved the partnership Irotn any deficiency de-ficiency but this does not Indicate that the Interest I of tile partnership would not be affrclod IUbyr reversal of the lodgment for I would bo Impossible to know what the result of another trial wonld be To reverse the final ude moot would be to ovrlor aU the pro coedlege and leave I the paroles In Ihe am poohlonlo whIch they were btoro the case was tried The receiver of the partnership of Thompson Brothers was clearly an ad Terse pry and the failure t serve him with notice Is laal to the appeal The same question was presented and discussed with some car in lb erase of Commercial National bank vs United B amen Savlngi Loan A Building company com-pany 41 iaolflo reporter IOU and on the authority I of that cue the appeal herewith Is I uiamliied ppa Tbe opinion li written by Joitloe Barlcb and concurred In oy Chief Justice Ziue and Justice Miner YVmiaiui Van 001 and Buther land ware atornj for plloUaad rupendnl and Jears tb IIbrodr end Booth lose and Uray lor dtodol aud appella |