Pierce Butler

“ The state court found that the certificate holders who assigned to defendant in error were not original parties to the suit, that they did not subsequently intervene or appear in person or by sounsel, that no relief was sought against them by any party to the suit, and that the only relief sought by stockholders and annuity certificate holders, who proposed and supported the plan of rehabilitation, was to have the property returned to the insurance company upon payment of its debts. ”

“ A receiver was appointed and directed to sell the property of the insurance company. When the application of the receiver for confirmation of his acceptance of an offer came before the court, certain stockholders of the agency company and certificate holders appeared and asked a postponement. It was shown that some of the stockholders and certificate holders had undertaken to raise funds for the rehabilitation of the insurance company, that some money for this purpose had been contributed, and that there was assurance that enough would be raised to pay off the debts. ”

“ See Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 Sup. Ct. 841, 42 L. Ed. 215; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 277, 23 L. Ed. 914; McVeigh v. United States, 11 Wall. 259, [2] 20 L. Ed. 80.
Writ of error dismissed. ”