Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

of a bankrupt,25 and, it seems, of any other suit against the trustee which affects the estate.26 A Court of Bankruptcy has jurisdiction of a suit by a trustee upon the bond of a former trustee in bankruptcy; 27 and of proceedings, to chancer or collect a bond given it by the bankrupt 28 or by a depositary,2 29

International

25 Cleminshaw v. Shirt & Collar Co., 165 Fed. 797; Re MacDougall, 175 Fed. 400. It has been held that a petition, filed in a court of bankruptcy by a creditor, praying for priority of payment from the proceeds of certain lands sold by the trustee, cannot be considered to be a bill in equity to establish a resulting trust in the same. Teter v. Viquesney, C. C. A., 179 Fed. 655; Re Larkey, 214 Fed. 867 (a leasehold and subtenant's rights); Re Miller Pure Rye Distilling Co., C. C. A., 214 Fed. 1,189 (the rights of a pledgee); Re National Boat & Engine Co., 216 Fed. 208; Re Kligerman, 219 Fed. 758 (mechanics' lien); Re Gibbons, 225 Fed. 420; Re Jamison Bros. & Co., 227 Fed. 30 (the rights of a pledgee); Re Wegman Piano Co., 228 Fed. 60; Davis v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 644; Re Goldberg & Sagman, 232 Fed. 194 (the assets of a corporation); Petition of Friedlaender, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 250 (rescission of sale); State of Missouri v. Angle, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 644 (assets of private banks where State laws give a preference to depositors); Re Robinson, 237 Fed. 102; Roger v. J. B. Levert Co., C. C. A., 237 Fed. 737; Re Cobb's Consol. Co., 233 Fed. 459 (the assets of a corporation); Karasik v. People's Trust Co., 241 Fed. 939 (the validity of mortgages); Re Gottlieb, 245 Fed. 139. See § 635, infra. A court of bankruptcy has

jurisdiction of an application by the trustee in possession of land, to determine the validity of the claim of the lessor that the lien has been forfeited by an act of the bankrupt. Gazlay v. Williams, 210 U. S. 41, 53 L. ed. 950. An injunction may be granted by a court of bankruptcy against the prosecution of a suit by a stockholder of the bankrupt, to enforce a cause of action which had been settled in the court of bankruptcy; but not, it was held, of a suit to compel that settler to account for profits made by him through property conveyed to him as a part of the settlement, upon the ground that, being an officer of the bankrupt, he thereby secured an advantage for which he should be required to account. Re Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 180 Fed. 549.

26 Re McCallum, 113 Fed. 393. 27 U. S. ex rel. Schauffler v. Union Surety & Guaranty Co., 118 Fed. 482.

28 Re Appel, 163 Fed. 1002. But see Jaquith v. Rowley, 188 U. S. 620, 47 L. ed. 620.

29 Illinois Surety Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 226 Fed. 665. It has been held that such a suit must be brought in equity by the persons interested in the name of the United States and that the surety has no right of subrogation to the right of any beneficiary until all those for whose benefit the bond has been given had been paid. Ibid. Such a suit should be brought in equity

or by any party to the proceeding or intervenor therein.30 A Court of Bankruptcy has jurisdiction of proceedings to determine the exemptions to which the bankrupt is entitled,31 but not to administer the widow's right to a year's allowance from the estate of a bankrupt, who died after the adjudication.32 A Court of Bankruptcy has jurisdiction of summary proceedings to compel the surrender of property of the bankrupt in his possession, or in that of his agent, or of a stranger to the proceedings who holds it under a claim of right which is clearly frivolous, or when the property has been taken from the possession of the Court of Bankruptcy or wrongfully surrendered by its receiver.33 A Court of Bankruptcy has jurisdiction to take possession of property and to determine the title thereto when the State court took possession thereof in proceedings begun within four months of the bankruptcy proceeding, at least when the debtor was insolvent,35 and when the State court took possession within such four months whilst the debtor was insolvent,36 or when a trustee in insolvency took possession within that period. After the death of an insolvent before the initiation of proceedings in bankruptcy the Court of Bankruptcy has no jurisdiction to administer his estate 88 unless he is a member

for the benefit of all the depositing trustees and receivers. Ibid.

30 Re Regealed Ice Co., 199 Fed. 340, holding that upon an application for the cancellation of such a bond, the court has the power to order the persons for whose benefit the same was given to file their claims within a specified time.

31 McGahan v. Anderson, C. C. A., 113 Fed. 115. See 8650, infra.

32 Re Seabolt, 113 Fed. 766, 83 Infra, § 635.

34 Re Knight, 125 Fed. 35, 11 Am. Br. 1, criticised in Remington on Bankruptcy, § 1582.

35 Re Rudnick & Co., 158 Fed. 223, replevin.

36 Re Francis-Valentine Co., 94 Fed. 793, 2 Am. B. R. 522; Bear v. Chase, C. C. A., 99 Fed. 920, 3 Am. B. R. 746; Re Kenney, C. C.

A., 105 Fed. 897, 5 Am. B. R. 355; Re Tune, 115 Fed. 906, 8 Am. B. R. 285. In one case, the court refused to enjoin a sale under an execution, levied within four months under a judgment obtained several years before. Re Shoemaker, 112 Fed. 648, 7 Am. B. R. 437. See also Tennessee Producer Marble Co. V. Grant, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 322, 14 Am. B. R. 288.

87 Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188, 5 Am. B. R. 623; Davis v. Bohle, C. C. A., 92 Fed. 325, 1 Am. B. R. 412; affirming s. c., sub nom Re Sievers, 91 Fed. 366, 1 Am. B. R. 117; Leidigh Carriage Co. v. Stengel, C. C. A., 95 Fed. 645, 2 Am. B. R. 383; Re Chase, C. C. A., 124 Fed. 753, 10 Am. B. R. 677.

38 Re Pierce, 102 Fed. 977; Re

of an insolvent firm, one or more of the members of which survive him.39

Neither the dissolution of a corporation by a State court for insolvency within four months prior to the filing of a petition for involuntary bankruptcy,40 nor the appointment of a receiver of its property within or before that period,41 deprives the District Court of the United States of jurisdiction. A Court of Bankruptcy has no jurisdiction except by a plenary suit to interfere with property which has been in the possession of a State court for more than four months previous to the institution of the bankruptcy proceedings; 42 although it may, perhaps, grant a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until the trustee can intervene in the State court.43 But where the State court took possession within four months of the bankruptcy proceedings, whilst the debtor was insolvent,44 or trustee in insolvency took possession within that period; 45 the

[blocks in formation]

39 Re Pierce, 102 Fed. 977. Infra, § 618.

40 Re Storck Lumber Co., 114 Fed. 360.

41 Re Sterlingworth Ry. Supply Co., 164 Fed. 591.

42 Metcalf v. Barker, 187 U. S. 165, 47 L. ed. 122; Pickens v. Dent, 187 U. S. 177, 47 L. ed. 128; Jaquith v. Rowley, 188 U. S. 620, 23 Sup. Ct. 369, 47 L. ed. 413; Re Kavanaugh, 99 Fed. 928, 3 Am. B. R. 832; National Bank of the Republic of Hobbs, 118 Fed. 626, 9 Am. B. R. 190; Tennessee Producer, Marble Co. v. Grant, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 322, 14 Am. B. R. 288. Cf. supra, $52. It has been held that the possession by a sheriff, more than four months prior to the bankruptcy proceedings, under a general writ of execution, which enforces no specific lien upon the property, does not give exclusive jurisdiction to the State court. Re Vastbinder, 132

Fed. 718, 13 Am. B. R. 148; Re
Baughman, 138 Fed. 742, 15 Am.
B. R. 23.

43 Infra, § 633.

44 Re Francis-Valentine Co., 94 Fed. 793, 2 Am. B. R. 522; Bear v. Chase, C. C. A., 99 Fed. 920, 3 Am. B. R. 746; Re Kenney, C. C. A., 105 Fed. 897, 5 Am. B. R. 355; Re Tune, 115 Fed. 906, 8 Am. B. R. 285. The court refused to enjoin a sale under an execution, levied within four months under a judgment obtained several years before. Re Shoemaker, 112 Fed. 648, 7 Am. B. R. 437. See also Tennessee Producer Marble Co. V. Grant, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 322, 14 Am. B. R. 288. See §§ 635, 644, infra.

45 Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188, 45 L. ed. 814, 5 Am. B. R. 623; Davis v. Bohle, C. C. A., 92 Fed. 325, 1 Am. B. R. 412; affirming 8. C., sub nom Re Sievers, 91 Fed. 366, 1 Am. B. R. 117; Leidigh Carriage Co. v. Stengel, C. C. A., 95

Court of Bankruptcy has jurisdiction to interfere. Where part of the subject-matter of a petition filed in proceedings in bankruptcy is within the jurisdiction of the court and part is not, so much of the same as prays relief that the court has power to give may be retained and an amendment permitted limiting the petition to a prayer for such relief.46 Upon the denial of an adjudication in bankruptcy, the jurisdiction of the court terminates and the property becomes subject to the control of any court of competent jurisdiction.47 The court has no power upon dismissing a petition, to determine the validity of the claim of the petitioning creditor,48 nor to retain jurisdiction in order to permit a reorganization of a corporation respondent.49 It has been said that the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction in any case where property is sequestered by a State court, in proceedings begun within the four months.50

§ 608a. Jurisdiction of courts of bankruptcy over attorneys. By the Bankruptcy Act, "If a debtor shall, directly or indirectly, in contemplation of the filing of a petition by or against him, pay money or transfer property to an attorney and counselor at law, solicitor in equity, or proctor in admiralty for services to be rendered, the transaction shall be reëxamined by the court on petition of the trustee or any creditor and shall only be held valid to the extent of a reasonable amount to be determined by the court, and the excess may be recovered by the trustee for the benefit of the estate." If the contract with the attorney was not made in contemplation of proceedings in bankruptcy there is no jurisdiction summarily to proceed. The words "in contemplation of the filing of a petition by or against him" mean that there must be some relation of cause and effect between the transaction with the attorney and the debtor's

Fed. 645, 2 Am. B. R. 383; Re
Chase, C. C. A., 124 Fed. 753, 10
Am. B. R. 677.

46 Re Newfoundland Syndicate, 196 Fed. 443.

47 Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 300, 309, 56 L. ed. 208, 214.

48 Re Sig. H. Rosenblatt & Co., C. C. A., 193 Fed. 638; Fitch v. Richardson, C. C. A., 147 Fed. 197.

49 Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 300, 309, 56 L. ed. 208, 214.

50 Re Knight, 125 Fed. 35, 11 Am. B. R. 1; criticised in Remington on Bankruptcy, § 1582.

§ 608a. 130 St. at L. 544, § 60d. Re Porter, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 552.

knowledge that he is in a financial condition which will enable him to file a petition in voluntary bankruptcy or subject him to involuntary proceedings. This is to be ascertained either by what was said when the transfer was made or by the surrounding circumstances, including the character of the services for which the attorney was employed. It has been said that in the latter case in order to justify the summary proceedings the service must be relevant to the bankruptcy and not one which might be performed in the ordinary course of business if no bankruptcy took place. The retainer of an attorney to collect fire insurance policies upon a contingent fee although made five days before the institution of involuntary proceedings in bankruptcy was held not to be subject to such summary examination. Where fees were paid to an attorney by assignees under a general insolvent assignment made by the bankrupt prior to the bankruptcy proceedings it was held that they were not subject to such a reëxamination. It has been held that this section does not apply to a note and chattel mortgage to secure payment to the attorney for his services in arranging a composition with creditors in order to prevent bankruptcy. Independently of the statute the attorney is an officer of the court, and, as such, is always subject to its orders in matters connected with his professional conduct. The court has power in a summary proceeding to set aside the sale by the bankrupt within the four months prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy of part of his assets to his attorney for the payment of the amount due the latter for services to the former.6 It has been held that the Court of Bankruptcy has no jurisdiction over his claim for services independent of the bankruptcy proceedings." Creditors of the bankrupt cannot after a trustee has been appointed institute proceedings against the attorney, unless, at least, the trustee has been requested so to act, and has refused. It seems that this section should be enforced by a summary proceeding, begun by an order to show cause, served upon the attorney,

2 Tripp v. Mitschrich, C. C. A., 211 Fed. 424.

8 Re Geller, 216 Fed. 558.

4 Re Stolp, 199 Fed. 488; infra, § 644.

5 Re Alexander, 193 Fed. 749.

6 Ibid.

7 Re Iron Clad Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 215 Fed. 877, in which the author was counsel.

8 Re Oakley, 215 Fed. 265.

« ForrigeFortsett »