Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

of court not affected by judgments recorded subsequent thereto; Newman v. Burke, 35 La. Ann. 188, refusing to apply entire fund where claimants to same fund are before United States Supreme Court; Keerl v. Keerl, 28 Md. 160, holding one court cannot interfere with control of property by another court; State v. Taylor, 3 Mo. App. 357, holding property in custody of State court not subject to process of Federal courts; Feusier v. Lammon, 6 Nev. 213, holding no power in State courts to interfere with property in custody of United States marshal; Merrill v. Jordan, 60 Ν. Η. 426, holding adjudication in bankruptcy does not divest State court of jurisdiction to foreclose mortgage; Home, etc., Co. v. Howell, 24 N. J. Eq. 241, holding State court of concurrent jurisdiction with Federal court, could retain proceedings; New Jersey, etc., Co. v. Franklin, etc., Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 431, refusing to grant injunction where proceedings are pending in United States court; Keating v. Spink, 3 Ohio St. 126, 62 Am. Dec. 231, holding Admiralty Court cannot take property out of custody of State court having jurisdiction; Chapin v. James, 11 R. I. 89, 23 Am. Rep. 415, holding State Supreme Court has no power to enjoin United States marshal from selling upon execution; Longstreet v. Hill, 11 Heisk. 59, holding United States marshal has no right to seize goods in custody of sheriff; Dorr v. Rohr, 82 Va. 370, 3 Am. St. Rep. 115, dissolving injunction enjoining decree of Federal court; Craig v. Hoge, 95 Va. 280, 28 S. E. 319, holding that one court should refuse to proceed when existence of similar suit brought to its notice; Mason v. Hoge, 7 W. Va. 540, holding attachment liens not affected by proceedings in bankruptcy; Smith v. Ford, 48 Wis. 153, 2 N. W. 157, holding right of plaintiff to litigate in one court cannot be taken away by another.

Cited in valuable note discussing this subject in 62 Am. Dec. 245. Cited, arguendo, in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 716, 20 L. 671, holding jurisdiction of one court not affected by that of another where relief prayed is different; Adams v. Mercantile, etc., Co., 66 Fed. 621, 30 U. S. App. 204, holding actual seizure of property not necessary to give court jurisdiction; Markson v. Haney, 47 Ind. 37, holding suit in State court to foreclose mortgage will be stayed until bankruptcy proceedings have terminated; Clifton v. Foster, 103 Mass. 236, 4 Am. Rep. 542, ordering petition to enforce lien to stand over until termination of bankruptcy proceedings; Booth v. Ableman, 16 Wis. 463, 84 Am. Dec. 712, holding within the jurisdiction of court wrongfully replevining property, to order its return; Brigham v. Claflin, 31 Wis. 615, 11 Am. Rep. 627, holding Federal court exclusive jurisdiction of all actions under bankrupt law. Cited, arguendo, in In re Brinkman, 7 Bank. Reg. 432, 437, 4 Fed. Cas. 149.

Distinguished in Hammock v. Loan, etc., Co., 105 U. S. 82, 26 L. 1113, upholding seizure of property in custody of one representing court without authority; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 269, 274, 38 L

985, 987, 14 S. Ct. 1022, 1024, holding United States District Court not required to wait until termination of proceedings in State court; Mercantile, etc., Co. v. Lamoille, etc., R. R., 16 Blatchf. 327, F. C. 9.432, holding United States courts can settle question of property when not interfering with possession of State court; Andrews v. Smith, 19 Blatchf. 104, 5 Fed. 837, overruling plea as to jurisdiction when property not in possession of State court; Irving v. Hughes, 2 Bank. Reg. 61 (20), 13 Fed. Cas. 113, holding Federal court may enjoin litigant in State court from acting contrary to bankruptcy law; Sutherland v. Lake, etc., Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 464, 9 Ν. B. R. 311, ordering all matters pending in State court to be adjudged in original suit; Rumsey v. Town, 20 Fed. 563, holding assignee filing bond in one court does not exclude jurisdiction of other courts; Merritt v. American, etc., Co., 79 Fed. 231, 49 U. S. App. 92, holding suit in personam in one court not preventing suit in another court; Animarium Co. v. Bright, 82 Fed. 198, holding sheriff not guilty of contempt when goods had left custody of United States marshal; Gay v. Brierfield, etc., Co., 94 Ala. 308, 309, 311, 318, 324, 33 Am. St. Rep. 126, 127, 129, 136, 11 So. 354, 355, 356, 359, 361, 16 L. R. A. 566, 567, 570, 573, reviewing cases and holding State court will grant such relief as not interfering with jurisdiction of Federal court; Smith v. Bauer, 9 Colo. 382, 12 Pac. 398, holding property may be seized in custody of United States marshal where consent is obtained; Howe v. Freeman, 14 Gray, 572, holding action maintainable in State court against United States marshal.

An injunction issued by one court to restrain proceedings of another is equally objectionable whether it be addressed to the court itself or the parties before it, p. 625.

Cited and approved in Central, etc., Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 463, 42 L. 818, 18 S. Ct. 414, holding State court cannot restrain parties from proceedings with sale under decree of United States Circuit Court; Yick Wo v. Crowley, 11 Sawy. 425, 26 Fed. 209, holding national courts cannot restrain proceedings of State court by injunction against parties; Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. 851, holding prohibition against restraining proceedings in State courts applies to parties before the court; Dillon v. Kansas, etc., R. R., 43 Fed. 111, refusing to restrain petitioner before State court; Whitney v. Wilder, 54 Fed. 555, 13 U. S. App. 180, holding practical effect of enjoining administrator was to stay proceeding in court.

Injunction. - Where the suit pending before the State court is not one in bankruptcy, the Federal courts are prohibited by the acts of Congress, 1793, from issuing an injunction to stay the proceedings of a State court, p. 625.

Cited and followed in Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 266, 15 L. 395, refusing injunction where title is in litigation in court of concurrent Jurisdiction; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 719, 20 L. 671, refusing in

f

junction to prevent taking possession of property under decree of Chancery Court; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 341, 24 L. 644, refusing to enjoin defendant from prosecuting action of ejectment in State court; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 220, 31 L. 409, 8 S. Ct. 492, holding United States Circuit Court no jurisdiction to restrain proceedings of State board; Ruggles v. Simonton, 3 Biss. 330, F. C. 12,120, holding United States court no authority to restrain execution of process of State court; Chaffin v. St. Louis, 4 Dill. 23, F. С. 2,572, refusing to issue injunction to restrain proceedings in State court; Yick Wo v. Crowley, 11 Sawy. 424, 26 Fed. 208, holding United States courts had no authority to restrain chief of police from serving warrants; Dillon v. Kansas, etc., R. R., 43 Fed. 111, refusing to enjoin proceedings in State court; Whitney v. Wilder, 54 Fed. 555, 13 U. S. App. 180, the prohibition of injunction applies to all cases where State courts first obtain jurisdiction; Reinach v. Atlantic, etc., R. R., 58 Fed. 44, refusing to restrain receiver of State court from issuing certificates; Chicago, etc., Bank v. Bentz. 59 Fed. 647, refusing to enjoin liquidators of corporation from bringing suit in State court; Edwards, etc., Co. v. Sprague, 76 Me. 62, refusing to issue injunction to stay action pending in State court; Hill, etc., Co. v. Providence, etc., Co., 113 Mass. 500, 501, 18 Am. Rep. 532, 533, holding action of United States district judge restraining prosecution of damage suit a nullity.

Distinguished in Tuchman v. Welch, 42 Fed. 553, holding injunction will lie to restrain proceedings under unconstitutional act; Texas, etc., R. R. v. Kuteman, 54 Fed. 551, 13 U. S. App. 99. holding Federal courts not prohibited from restraining suits in State court not yet commenced; Allen v. Buchanan, 97 Ala. 403, 38 Am. St. Rep. 191, 11 So. 778, holding court of equity has power to enjoin person within its jurisdiction from prosecuting suits.

7 How. 626-627, 12 L. 847, COLBY v. LEDDEN.

Bankruptcy.- Affirming preceding case of Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612-626.

Cited in Galbraith v. Fisher, 22 Pa. St. 416, holding property sold by assignee subject to attachment liens valid by State laws.

Distinguished in In re Brinkman, 7 Bank. Reg. 437, 4 Fed. Cas. 151, granting injunction restraining sheriff from selling property of bankrupt under decree of State court.

7 How. 627-646, 12 L. 847, SHAWAN v. WHERRITT.

Fraudulent preferences. - One creditor having notice that his debtor has committed an act of bankruptcy by making a fraudulent conveyance, or of his intention to take the benefit of the act, or knowing that the debtor is bankrupt, cannot obtain preference over other creditors, either by accepting payment or by obtaining a lien upon the debtor's property, but all such payments and all such liens are void; accordingly a lien thus acquired in a State court is Invalid and the creditor must account to the assignee for the proceeds, pp. 644, 645.

Cited and principle followed in Buchanan v. Smith, 16 Wall. 307, 21 L. 286, 7 Bank. Reg. 524, holding invalid a judgment secured by creditor with knowledge of debtor's insolvency; Graham v. Stark, 3 Ben. 535, 3 Bank. Reg. 370, F. C. 5,676, holding invalid a mortgage given to creditor who had notice of insolvency of mortgagor; In re Wallace, Deady, 436, F. C. 17,094, restraining the levying of executions issuing out of State court against property of bankrupt; In re Black, 2 Ben. 207, 1 N. B. R. (82) 353, F. C. 1,457, ordering the return to assignee of property seized on execution; Beattie v. Gardner, 4 Ben. 497, 499, 4 Bank. Reg. 339, 340, F. C. 1,195, holding creditor with knowledge of bankruptcy could not obtain valid lien in State court; Vanderhoof v. Bank of St. Paul, 1 Dill. 480, 5 N. B. R. 274, F. C. 16,842, holding invalid, lien secured by judgment creditor without resistance on part of insolvent debtor; Haskell v. Ingalls, 1 Hask. 347, 5 N. B. R. 210, F. C. 6,193, restraining judgment creditor from gaining fraudulent preference by sale of bankrupt's property; Goodenow v. Milliken, 1 Hask. 352, F. C. 5,535, holding assignee could recover money paid by debtor to creditor as a fraudulent preference; Perry v. Langley, 1 Bank. Reg. 563, 19 Fed. Cas. 282, entering decree in bankruptcy where insolvent debtor assigned all his property; Tuttle v. Truax, 1 Bank. Reg. 602, 24 Fed. Cas. 398, holding mortgage taken to secure pre-existing debt void as a fraudulent preference; Grow v. Ballard, 2 Bank. Reg. 196, 11 Fed. Cas. 88, allowing recovery of goods by assignee alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by bankrupt; In re Gregg, 4 Bank. Reg. 457, 10 Fed. Cas. 1191, holding void, a bill of sale executed by insolvent debtor to attaching creditor; In re Lord, 5 Bank. Reg. 332, 15 Fed. Cas. 878, holding judgments entered within four months of filing petition, fraudulent preferences; Warren v. Delaware, etc., R. R., 7 Bank. Reg. 454, 29 Fed. Cas. 272, holding judgments and executions issued thereon fraudulent and void against assignee; Anshutz v. Hoerr, 1 Fed. 595, holding action maintainable by assignee for property sold under judgment of State court.

Cited, arguendo, in Baldwin v. Raplee, 4 Ben. 448, F. C. 801, holding unnecessary to discuss effect of secret lien recorded after act of bankruptcy; In re Kingsbury, 3 Bank. Reg. (85) 323, 14 Fed. Cas. 584, holding a preference accepted by creditor excludes him from proving debt. Cited in note to Warren v. Delaware, etc., R. R., 7 Bank. Reg. 458, 29 Fed. Cas. 273, holding unnecessary to decide whether acts are fraudulent when not within express provision of act.

Cited approvingly in Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Buckner, 20 How. 120, 15 L. 867, holding United States Circuit Court without jurisdiction to grant relief against discharge in bankruptcy; Michaels v. Post, 21 Wall. 428, 22 L. 526, holding the decree of the District Court adjudging debtor a bankrupt, not open to collateral attack; Lamp, etc., Co. v. Brass, etc., Co., 91 U. S. 661, 23 L. 338, holding decree adjudging a corporation bankrupt cannot be collaterally attacked; In re Wallace, Deady, 434, F. C. 17,094, holding decree of court adjudging debtor a bankrupt binding upon the world; In re Mallory, 1 Sawy. 93, 6 Bank. Reg. 27, F. C. 8,991, holding District Court in bankruptcy has power to restrain sheriff of State court; Zahm v. Fry, 9 Bank. Reg. 553, 30 Fed. Cas. 906, holding Federal courts have power to set aside property seized on process of State courts; Sawyer v. Rector, 5 Dak. Ter. 123, 37 N. W. 746, holding discharge in bankruptcy a complete bar; Boyd v. Olney, 82 Ind. 306, holding decree of District Court discharging bankrupt final; Smith v. Brinkerhoff, 6 N. Y. 307, holding creditors affected with notice who purchased notes after publication of notice; Bank v. Judson, 8 N. Y. 268, holding records reciting fact of appearance of party valid against collateral attack; Hudson v. Bigham, 12 Heisk. 65, holding decree in bankruptcy conclusive against collateral attack; Brown v. Causey, 56 Tex. 345, presuming creditors have notice of proceedings when notice required by statute is given; Thomas v. Jones, 39 Wis. 128, holding that discharge in bankruptcy cannot be impeached in State courts.

Distinguished in In re Avery v. Johann, 3 Bank. Reg. (36) 146, 4 Bank. Reg. 436, 2 Fed. Cas. 251, holding District Court will not take jurisdiction on petition of secured creditor; In re Dunkle, 7 Bank. Reg. 76, 8 Fed. Cas. 58, holding adjudication of bankruptcy, in invitum, not conclusive against execution creditor; In re Thomas, 23 Fed. Cas. 934, 11 Bank. Reg. 333, 334, holding under act of 1867, adjudication of bankruptcy not conclusive as to creditors not parties to proceeding; Syester v. Brewer, 27 Md. 315, holding a decree establishing fraudulent conveyance not binding on one not a party thereto.

Evidence. - Where it is necessary to establish the facts that there was a debt due the petitioning creditor, or that an act of bankruptcy had been committed, or that the bankrupt belonged to that class liable to be adjudged a bankrupt in invitum, in order to support the decree of the Bankruptcy Court, the record of the proceedings in such court will be prima facie evidence that these facts were established, p. 643.

Cited to this point in In re Dunkle, 7 Bank. Reg. 76, 8 Fed. Cas. 58, holding decree in bankruptcy in invitum not conclusive against execution creditor.

District Court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of bankruptcy and of the person of the bankrupt, its decree is made conclusive evidence of the title of the assignee, p. 643.

« ForrigeFortsett »