HICKS
v.
KNOST
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 trustee in bankruptcy sought to recover money fraudulently transferred by bankrupts to a creditor within four months before bankruptcy proceedings began. The Supreme Court held that a federal District Court has jurisdiction to entertain such an equity suit by a trustee in bankruptcy against a fraudulent transferee only when the defendant consents to the court's jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a bill in equity in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, against a creditor of the bankrupts, to recover money to the amount of $2780, paid by the bankrupts to the defendant, with intent to prefer the defendant and to defraud the creditors of the bankrupts, within four months before the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Both parties were citizens of Ohio and residents of that district. The District Court dismissed the bill, for want of jurisdiction. 94 Fed. Rep. 625. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which certified to this court the following question:
“ Has-a District Court of the United States jurisdiction to entertain a bill in equity filed by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by it, against a fraudulent grantee or transferee of the bankrupt resident in its district, to recover the property belong ing to the estate of the bankrupt, and by him fraudulently conveyed to defendant?*'
For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank just decided, the answer to this question must be that the District Court has such jurisdiction by the consent of the proposed defendant, but not otherwise.
Ordered aeeordmgly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co., Inc. v. Fox, 264 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1924)…ere 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. 545; Flanders v. Coleman, 250 U. S. 223. The Act of 1841 was said, in Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292, 312, to have conferred upon the bankruptcy court…
-
Whitney v. Wenman, 198 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1905)…ruptcy 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 bankruptcy court to adjudicate…
-
Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1901)…es 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, each of which relates to applicati…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence