WINCHESTER
v.
HEISKELL

U.S. | 1886-12-13
119 U.S. 450 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Caution
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 462 · 7 S. Ct. 281 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 2009 · SCDB 1886-060
Cited by 36 cases

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.

Synopsis

A bankruptcy assignee who voluntarily appeared and litigated in state court is bound by the state court's judgment, and the federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce that binding effect despite the exclusive federal jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. The Supreme Court affirmed the state court's decision, holding that an assignee in bankruptcy who participates in state court proceedings cannot later claim immunity from those judgments based on federal exclusive bankruptcy jurisdiction.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
MR. Chief Justice Waite,

MR. Chief Justice Waite,

after stating the.case, delivered the opinion of the court.

One of the questions presented by the bill was as to the binding effect of the decree in the original case upon the complainants in this suit. Objection was not made in the pleadings to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter • of the action on account of the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United. States, under § 711 of the Revised Statutes, “ of all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy,” but it clearly' ivas at the trial before the referees, and it - was directly presented to and decided' by the Supreme' Court. , An .immunity was claimed by the appellants under this statute -from the operation of the decree of the State court on their •rights, because, that statute made the jurisdiction of the courts. of the United-States exclusive in such cases. We thus have jurisdiction, but as-the decision of the State court upon this question was clearly right, we do not care to hear further argument. The assignee in bankruptcy appeared in the State court and litigated his rights there. This he had authority to do, and the judgment in such an action is binding on him. This we have many times decided. Mays v. Fritton, 20 Wall. 414; Doe v. Childress, 21 Wall. 642, 647; Scott v. Kelly, 22 Wall. 57; Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521; Burbank v. Bigelow, 92 U. S. 179, 182; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 737; McHenry v. La Société Francaise, 95 U. S. 58; Davis v. Friedlander, 104 U. S. 570. The question here is not whether that decree thus rendered binds these appellants, but whether the State court had jurisdiction so as to bind those who.weré parties to the suit, and those whom the parties in law-represented.

The motion to dismiss is denied, a/nd that to affvrm gremted.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

  • Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726 (U.S. 1946)
    …dered, or their representatives. Pepper v. Litton, supra, 306, n. 13; cf. Mays v. Fritton, 20 Wall. 414; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 737; McHenry v. La Société Francaise, 95 [*737] U. S. 58; Davis v. Friedlander, supra; Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450, 453; Grant v. Buckner, 172 U. S. 232, 238. Neither Pepper v. Litton, supra, on which respondents chiefly rely, nor the other cases which they cite, sustain the contention that the bankruptcy court, in passing on the validity of creditors’ claims,…
  • Brown v. Gerdes, 321 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1944)
    …not advance the solution of the present problem. A bankruptcy trustee who by choice or by necessity resorts to a state court for the prosecution of a claim is of course bound by the adjudication made in the state proceeding. Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450; Fischer v. Pauline Oil [*186] & Gas Co., 309 U. S. 294, 303. The state court has full control over the litigation. But even as an incident thereto, it may not take action which involves the performance of functions which Congress has entrusted to t…
  • Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 61 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1932)
    …appear that in fact the necessary diversity existed. An appellate court must reverse for want of jurisdiction, but may give leave to the trial court to permit correction by amendment of the pleadings. Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, 7 S. Ct. 276, 30 L. Ed. 462; Thomas v. Anderson, 223 F. 41 (C. C. A. 8); Watson v. Bonfils, 116 F. 157 (C. C. A. 8); Matthew v. Coppin, supra; Grove v. Grove, 93 F. 865 (C. C. Kan.). Although this court apparently dismissed in toto in Danks v. Gordon, supra, and Carpenter v…

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw