MITCHELL
v.
MCCLURE
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.
A bankruptcy trustee sued to recover goods allegedly conveyed to the defendants in fraud of the Bankrupt Act of 1898, but the District Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain replevin actions brought by bankruptcy trustees to recover property transferred in fraud of the bankruptcy laws.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. J ustioe Gray delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of replevin in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover a stock of goods, of the value of $2500, in the possession of the defendants, citizens of Pennsylvania and residents of that district, and alleged to have been conveyed to them by the bankrupt, within four months before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, in fraud of the Bankrupt Act of 1898, and of the creditors of the bankrupt. The District Court, on motion of the defendant, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an action, and therefore ordered it to be abated. 91 Fed. Bep. 621. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court, and the District Judge certified that the question of jurisdiction was the sole question in issue.
For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, just decided,
The.ffiidgmeni is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co., Inc. v. Fox, 264 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1924)…irst National Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 198 U. S. 280, 289; Galbraith v. Vallely, 256 U. S. 46. In Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188, 197, there was consent to the jurisdiction. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U. S. 524; Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U. S. 539; Wall v. Cox, 181 U. S. 244; Frank v. Vollkommer, 205 U. S. 521; Wood v. Wilbert’s Sons Co., 226 U. S. 384, 389. Compare Hicks v. Knost, 178 U. S. 541; Bush v. Elliott, 202 U. S. 477; Lovell v. Newman & Son, 227 U. S. 412; Collett v. Adams, 249 U. S…
-
Whitney v. Wenman, 198 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1905)…its brought by trustees in bankruptcy against third persons to recover property -fraudulently conveyed by the bankrupt to them' before the. institution of proceedings in bankruptcy [*552]. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U. S. 524; Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U. S. 539; Hicks v. Knost, 178 U. S. 541.” This case (Bryan v. Bernheimer) would seem to limit the effect of the decision in the Bardes case to suits against third persons on account of transfers made before the bankruptcy, and to recognize the right of the…
-
Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1901)…on over suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy against third persons to recover property fraudulently conveyed by the bankrupt to them before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U. S. 524; Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U. S. 539; Hicks v. Knost, 178 U. S. 541. The present case involves no question of jurisdiction over a suit by a trustee against a person claiming an adverse interest in himself. [*195] Nor is it a petition under § 3e or § 69 of the Bankrupt Act of 1898, eac…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence