Statement of the Case.

& Safety Deposit Company also filed an answer to the bill of Sully and Carhart, in which the Travelers' company alleged that the land company was indebted to it in the sum of $30,000, and three years' interest, and in other sums amounting to several thousand dollars, which amount was secured by a mortgage or deed of trust to the Connecticut Trust and Safety Deposit Company on what is known as the Carnegie Hotel property, which is a portion of the property of the land company, and is situated in the State of Tennessee. It also denied the existence of the bonded indebtedness claimed on the part of complainants, and alleged that in any event the debt of the Travelers' company against the land company was older than, and the mortgage to the Trust Company was prior to, that of the complainants Sully and Carhart, and it denied that these last-named parties had any debt as claimed by them or a lien of any kind on the property of the land company.

The insurance company also filed a petition in the suit brought by the bank, in which it set up the existence of its mortgage, and also prayed to be allowed to become a party to that cause, and to have its note, which was secured by the mortgage, declared a preferred claim, and decreed to be paid in full out of the proceeds of the sale of the property specifically mortgaged to it.

An amended petition was filed by it, in which it alleged that it was the owner of another claim against the land company in favor of P. Fleming & Company, for a little less than two thousand dollars, under the circumstances mentioned in the petition.

October 11, 1895, Mary P. Myton and A. B. Carhart filed a petition in each of the above suits, in which they described themselves as Mary P. Myton, a resident of the State of New York, and A. B. Carhart, a resident of the city of Brooklyn. In that petition Mary P. Myton alleged a claim against the land company, as existing on November 27, 1894, in the sum of $4094.54, with interest from November 27, 1892; while A. B. Carhart alleged a claim as of the date of November 27, 1894, of $2248.66, and they asked to become parties to the above named causes,

Counsel for Plaintiff in Error.

for the purpose of setting up these demands, and for a decree against the company for their amounts, with interest.

(It is stated that the two debts represented by these notes were actually in existence prior to the execution of the mortgage to secure the bonds owned by Carhart; the notes being, in truth, renewals of other ones executed prior to that time.)

These various proceedings were consolidated into one action, and the case was referred to a master to take proof of all the facts. The master made his report, upon which a final decree by the chancellor was entered. It was decreed that the land company, by its deed of general assignment, of June 3, 1893, in making disposition therein for the payment of its creditors, without any preferences, attempted to defeat the preferences given by law to creditors, residents of Tennessee, over nonresident creditors and mortgagees, whose mortgages were made subsequent to the creation of the debts due resident creditors, and that such deed was fraudulent in law, and void; that the making of the deed was an act of insolvency by the land company, and that the bill filed by the bank was properly filed, and should be sustained as a general creditors' bill, and that the assets of the company under the jurisdiction of the court were subject to distribution under the law relating to foreign corporations doing business in Tennessee, and as such should be decreed in the action then pending.

The decree further adjudged that Carhart was a bona fide holder of the bonds mentioned in his bill, and that he was entitled to recover thereon as provided for in the decree, but subject to the payment of debts due residents of Tennessee prior to the registration of such mortgage. It was also decreed that the Travelers' Insurance Company by its mortgage acquired a valid lien upon the property covered by it, subordinate however to debts due residents of Tennessee contracted prior to the registration thereof, and also subject to some other liabilities of the land company.

The case was taken to the Court of Chancery Appeals, which modified in some particulars the decree of the chancellor, and after such modification it was affirmed. Upon writ of error from the Supreme Court the case was there heard, and that

Opinion of the Court.

court held that the statute in question, providing for the distribution of assets of foreign corporations doing business in that State, was constitutional, and was not in contravention of any provision of the Constitution of the United States. The decree of the Court of Chancery Appeals was modified in some respects, and after modification it was affirmed, and the cause remanded to the chancery court for execution.

The case has been brought here on writ of error in behalf of certain unsecured creditors, non-residents of Tennessee, and also in behalf of the Travelers' Insurance Company and of the holder of the bonds issued by the land company.

Mr. T. S. Webb and Mr. R. E. L. Mountcastle for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Quincy Ward Boese was on their brief.

Mr. S. C. Williams and Mr. E. J. Baxter for defendants in Mr. John H. Bowman was on Mr. Williams' brief.

error.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

There are two classes of creditors before the court, both of whom insist upon the erroneous character of the decree of the Supreme Court of the State. They are (a) general unsecured and non-resident creditors, and (b) non-resident creditors, who are also mortgagees. The creditors suing out this writ of error are all non-residents of the State of Tennessee, and they claim to have been illegally discriminated against in the courts below by reason of the statute of Tennessee providing for preferences to Tennessee creditors.

In regard to the unsecured non-resident creditors, objection is first made that there is only one of them, A. B. Carhart, who can be heard upon the question of the validity of the act of 1877, because he is the only person who has raised the point in any of the state courts. It is also claimed that the question was raised too late even by Carhart himself, inasmuch as it is alleged to have been raised by him for the first time in the Supreme Court of the State.

Opinion of the Court.

In reply to the first objection, it is urged on the part of creditors, other than Carhart, that they are general creditors in like class with him, and that if he can raise the question they are entitled to participate with him in the benefits of a decision thereof in his favor, to the same extent as if they had each personally raised the same question in the state court.

Cases are cited by counsel for these creditors from the courts of Tennessee, in which they say it has been held that "a broad appeal by any one party from an entire chancery decree, where the matter is purely of equitable cognizance, carries up the whole case so as to allow relief to be granted to those who do not appeal;" and it is said that Carhart made a broad appeal.

In reply, counsel for defendants in error say that the rule in Tennessee is that an appeal by an antagonistic party, even though a broad one, will not avail his opponent. It is also argued that the other creditors cannot be heard under Carhart's appeal, because the interests of such other creditors are not joint or common with him, but they are simply interested in the same question, which has never been held sufficient.

However it may be in regard to the rights of parties on appeal in the state court, we think that in order to be heard in this court the question must have been raised in the state court by the individual who seeks to have it reviewed here. A plaintiff in error in this court must show that he has himself raised the question in the state court which he argues here, and it will not aid him to show that some one else has raised it in the state court, while he failed himself to do so.

The two plaintiffs in error here, Sully, as the assignee of Manning, and Mrs. Myton, failed to appeal from the decree of the chancellor, as well as from the decree of the Court of Chancery Appeals, nor did they except to the report of the master, nor to the decree affirming it, and their first mention of the point in their own behalf is after the decision of the state Supreme Court.

This is not a case where, by the reversal of a decree at the instance of those who particularly raised the question in the courts below, the whole decree is opened and nullified so as to necessarily let in all parties standing in the same position to

Opinion of the Court.

The fund is to be distrib

share in the benefits of the decision. uted in this case according to the decision of the court; and of the parties to this suit, those only can avail themselves of the benefits of the decree who have properly raised the question and in whose favor the decree is rendered.

We must hold, therefore, that neither Sully, as assignee of Manning, nor Mrs. Myton is in a position to raise the question of the invalidity of the state statute.

In regard to the objection that even Carhart has raised the question too late we think it is without foundation. He raised it in the Supreme Court, and that court decided it against him, not on the ground that he had not raised it in the lower court, but on its merits, and for the reason that in the judgment of the Supreme Court the statute was a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative powers of the State.

The further objection made to Carhart is that it does not appear that he is a citizen of another State than Tennessee, and hence cannot avail himself of the fact of such citizenship in order to claim that his rights as such citizen have been infringed within the meaning of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution, declaring that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. We think the objection untenable.

In his original bill to foreclose the mortgage securing the eighty-five thousand dollars of bonds held by him, he described himself as a resident of the State of New York, and in the petition of Mrs. Myton and Mr. Carhart, filed October 11, 1895, in the two cases of the bank against the land company, and Sully, trustee, against the land company, Mrs. Myton is described as a resident of the State of New York, and A. B. Carhart is described as a resident of the city of Brooklyn. No question seems to have been made throughout the litigation as to the citizenship of those parties. The question does not seem to have arisen in any stage of the case up to the argument in this court. Although there may be some slight difference in the facts between this case and those which are stated in Blake v. McClung, supra, at page 246, we yet think that Carhart brings himself within the principle decided in that case, and that his citizen