ADAMS
v.
CRITTENDEN

U.S. | 1890-02-03
No. 952
133 U.S. 296 Supreme Court of the United States (1890) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 33 L. Ed. 623 · 10 S. Ct. 304 · 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1910 · SCDB 1889-112
Cited by 3 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 purchaser at a bankruptcy sale challenged a state court's foreclosure judgment against property acquired in that sale, claiming the state court lacked jurisdiction because of the prior bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed the state court's judgment, holding that the state court had proper jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the foreclosure, and any error in the court's ruling on whether liens attached to the land or the bankruptcy fund was merely an error of law that should have been corrected by appeal, not a jurisdictional defect that invalidated the entire proceeding.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brewer,

Mr. Justice Brewer,

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

The regularity of the proceedings of the state court' is not challenged. They were all subsequent to the proceedings in the. bankrupt court, and were not' commenced until after the title had passed away from the assignee in bankruptcy. The general jurisdiction of the state court is conceded. The purchaser, the plaintiff in error, was a party to that suit, and the claim of the plaintiff in error can only be sustained upon the theory that by reason of the bankrupt proceedings the state" court was prevented from taking jurisdiction.

But the truth. is, the question is one of error and not of jurisdiction. The, state court had jurisdiction of the-parties, and they were served with process and-. appeared. It had jurisdiction of .the foreclosure of liens, and it had a right to hear and determine whether the alleged liens still -existed, and whether, there was any valid, defence to their enforcement. The property upon which the liens were -claimed was not in the possession of the bankrupt court, but only in the posses-sion of the party purchasing from it. So, whether • it erred in deciding that the lien holders had a claim upon the land rathei; than upon the. fund in the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy, is immaterial. It presented simply a matter of error. An error in its ruling did not oust it of jurisdiction.' r.Tke error, if error' it was, could be corrected only by appeal The failure of the party to exhaust his remedy in that direction .does not now entitle him to disregard’ the entire proceed ing as without jurisdiction. Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450.

"We see no error in the ruling of the Circuit Court and its judgment is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • In re Watts and Sachs, 190 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1903)
  • Ludeling v. Chaffe, 143 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1892)
    …ignee, having appeared and answered to the petition for revival, and thereby submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the state court, would have been bound by its judgment, if against him. Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450; Adams v. Crittenden, 133 U. S. 296. But he set up no title in himself, no judgment wa's rendered against him, and he has sued out no writ of error. Section 5051 of the Revised Statutes has therefore no application to the case. Writ of error dismissed for wcmt ofjurisdiction. “A11 j…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw