Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Syllabus.

“ 1st. The provisions of the second clause of section 23 of the Bankrupt Act of 1898 control and limit the jurisdiction of all courts, including the several District Courts of the United States, over suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy to recover or collect debts due froin third parties, or to set aside transfers of property to third parties, alleged to be fraudulent as against creditors, including payments in money or property to preferred creditors.

« 2d. The District Court of the United States can, by the proposed defendants' consent, but not otherwise, entertain jurisdiction over suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy to set aside fraudulent transfers of money or property, made by the bankrupt to third parties before the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy.

“ 3d. The District Court for the Northern District of Iowa cannot take jurisdiction over this suit as it now stands on the record.”

The result is that the decree of the District Court, dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction, must be

Affirined.

MITCHELL v. MOCLURE.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WEST

ERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 237. Submitted April 12, 1900.-Decided May 28, 1900.

A District Court of the United States has no jurisdiction, without the pro

posed defendant's consent, to entertain an action of replevin by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover goods conveyed to the defendant by the bank

rupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act and of his creditors. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, followed.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. Thomas Patterson and Mr. S. Duffield Mitchell for plaintiff in error.

Mr. John S. Ferguson for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of replevin in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover a stock of goods, of the value of $2500, in the possession of the defendants, citizens of Pennsylvania and residents of that district, and alleged to have been conveyed to them by the bankrupt, within four months before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, in fraud of the Bankrupt Act of 1898, and of the creditors of the bankrupt. The District Court, on motion of the defendant, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an action, and therefore ordered it to be abated. 91 Fed. Rep. 621. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court, and the District Judge certified that the question of jurisdiction was the sole question in issue.

For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, just decided,

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion of the Court.

HICKS v. KNOST.

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SIXTH CIRCUIT.

No. 512. Submitted May 14, 1900. - Decided May 28, 1900.

A District Court of the United States has jurisdiction, by the proposed de

fendant's consent, but not otherwise, to entertain a bill in equity by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover property conveyed to the defendant by

the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act and of his creditors. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, followed.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Charles M. Peck for appellant.

Mr. Frederick Hertenstein for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE Gray delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill in equity in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, against a creditor of the bankrupts, to recover money to the amount of $2780, paid by the bankrupts to the defendant, with intent to prefer the defendant and to defraud the creditors of the bankrupts, within four months before the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Both parties were citizens of Ohio and residents of that district. The District Court dismissed the bill, for want of jurisdiction. 94 Fed. Rep. 625. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which certified to this court the following question:

“Has a District Court of the United States jurisdiction to entertain a bill in equity filed by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by it, against a fraudulent grantee or transferee of the bankrupt resident in its district, to recover the property belong

Statement of the Case.

ing to the estate of the bankrupt, and by him fraudulently conveyed to defendant?

For the reasons stated in Bardes v. llawarden Bank, just decided, the answer to this question must be that the District Court has such jurisdiction by the consent of the proposed defendant, but not otherwise.

Ordered accordingly.

WHITE v. SCHLOERB.

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

No. 530. Submitted April 26, 1900. – Decided May 28, 1900.

After an adjudication in bankruptcy, an action of replevin in a state court

cannot be commenced and maintained against the bankrupt to recover property in the possession of and claimed by the bankrupt at the time of that adjudication, and in the possession of a referee in bankruptcy at the time when the action of replevin is begun; and the District Court of the United States, sitting in bankruptcy, has jurisdiction by summary proceedings to compel the return of the property seized.

This was a petition in equity to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, under the jurisdiction conferred upon that court by the second clause of section 24 of the Bankrupt Act of July 1, 1898, c. 541, to superintend and revise in matter of law the proceedings in bankruptcy of the District Courts of the United States in that circuit. 30 Stat. 553. The Circuit Court of Appeals certified to this court the following statement of the case and the questions of law :

“On September 13, 1899, August T. Schloerb and Eugene B. Schickedantz, who were respectively residents and inhabitants of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and who were copartners in trade in the said district, filed their voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the District Court of the United States for that district. On the same day they were duly adjudged

Stateinent of the Case.

bankrupt by that court, and the matter referred to a referee in bankruptcy for further proceedings according to law. They had at that date a stock of goods contained in a store, the entrance to which was locked by the direction of the referee.

“Thereafter, on September 21, 1899, James Cogan and Bernard Cogan, who were copartners, commenced an action of replevin against the bankrupt in the circuit court of the State of Wisconsin for the county of Winnebago, in which county the store of the bankrupts was located, to recover the possession of certain specified goods, then in the store of the bankrupts, and forming part of their stock of goods. On the same day, the proper undertaking and requisition to the sheriff of the county of Winnebago, according to the law of the State of Wisconsin, were delivered to the petitioner Charles M. White, who was then the sheriff of the county, who delivered it for execution to the petitioner Henry Eckstein, who was the undersheriff of said sheriff. In pursuance of said requisition, the under-sheriff, on the same day, and before the selection and appointment of a trustee in the bankrupt proceedings, forcibly entered the store of the bankrupts, and took possession of certain goods, part of the goods specified in the writ of replevin.

“On September 23, 1899, the bankrupts presented their petition to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, setting forth the facts above recited, and also alleging that the goods so taken under the writ of replevin were part of a bill of goods purchased by them of the plaintiffs in that writ, and were their lawful property. The petition alleges that the goods were in the possession of the petitioners, the sheriff and under-sheriff mentioned, and John C. Thompson, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the writ of replevin, and asked the court that they be compelled to redeliver the goods to the District Court sitting in bankruptcy, from whose possession they were taken, and that they be enjoined from any disposition thereof. Upon the filing of the petition the District Court issued its mandate requiring the petitioners here, the sheriff, the undersheriff and the attorney mentioned, to show cause before that court, at a time and place mentioned, why the seizure of the goods under the writ of replevin should not be vacated and set aside,

« AnteriorContinuar »