JENKINS, ASSIGNEE,
v.
LŒWENTHAL & ANOTHER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jenkins, as assignee in bankruptcy, sought to recover lands conveyed by the bankrupt Walker to Kinney, claiming the absolute conveyances were intended as mortgages. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree dismissing the action, finding that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value without notice of any outstanding equities, which independently barred the suit without need to address the federal question regarding the statute of limitations.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
•This suit was brought by Robert E. Jenkins, as assignee in bankruptcy of Samuel J. Walker, a bankrupt, to recover certain lands conveyed by the bankrupt to Eh Kinney, on the alleged ground that the conveyances, though absolute on their face, were intended as mortgages. Two defences were interposed among others, one that the defendants, who are the present owners of the property, are innocent purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice of any outstanding equities in the assignee or the bankrupt; and the other that the suit was not brought within two years after the alleged cause of action accrued to the assignee. Rev. Stat., § 505Y. Either of these defences, if sustained, bars the action. The second involves a federal question, the other does not. The court in its decree sustained them both, and, among other things, found as a fact that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. As this finding is broad enough to maintain the decree, even though the federal question involved in the other defence was decided wrong, we affirm the decree, without considering that question or expressing any opinion upon it. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, sustains this practice.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Schlemmer v. Buffalo, 205 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1907)
-
Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1893)…so palpably unfounded that it cannot be presumed to have been entertained by the state court.” Different phases of the question Avere presented, and the same conclusion Avás reached in Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432, 441; Jenkins v. Lœwenthal, 110 U. S. 222; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554. [*368] In this state .of the law we are met, at the threshold in the present case, with the question whether the record discloses that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided adversely to the plaintiffs in…
-
Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Batchers' Union Slaughter-House Co., 120 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1887)…other grounds disclosed in the record, it will not be reversed for an erroneous ruling of the state [*157] court on a Federal question not necessary to the decision of the cause. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 634; Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U. S. 222; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172; Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314. However that may be, we are of the opinion, on other grounds, that the Supreme Court of Louisiana in this case erred in not giving due effect to the decree in question of the Circuit Cou…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 (U.S. 1875)