LUCIUS
v.
CAWTHON-COLEMAN COMPANY
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed a direct appeal in a bankruptcy case where the bankrupt claimed certain insurance policy proceeds were exempt property not subject to the bankruptcy estate. The Court held that bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 to determine exemption claims, and an erroneous decision on exemptions does not present a jurisdictional question proper for direct Supreme Court review under the 1891 appellate statute. Consequently, the appeal was not properly brought before the Supreme Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice White,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
By the express terms of subdivision 11 of section 2 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 jurisdiction is conferred upon courts of bankruptcy to determine all claims of bankrupts to their exemptions. When, therefore, as in the case at bar, property of the bankrupt has come into the possession of the trustee in bankruptcy, and the bankrupt has asserted in the bankruptcy court a claim to be entitled to a part or the whole of such property, as exempt property, the bankruptcy court necessarily is vested with jurisdiction to determine upon the facts before it the validity of the claimed exemption. An erroneous decision against an asserted right of exemption and a consequently erroneous holding that the property forms assets of the estate in bankruptcy, to be administered under the direction of the bankruptcy court, while subject to correction in the mode appropriate for the correction of errors, Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U. S. 294, does not create a question of jurisdiction proper to be passed upon by this court by a direct appeal under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891. Denver First National Bank v. Klug, 186 U. S. 202, 204, and cases cited. It necessarily results from the foregoing that as the bankruptcy court determined that the proceeds of the insurance policies in the hands of the trustee were assets of the estate in bankruptcy and not exempt property of the bankrupt, the jurisdiction existed to proceed to adjudicate the validity of an alleged equitable lien upon such property. Hutchinson v. Otis, 190 U. S. 552, 555.
As, therefore, upon the record before us, the jurisdiction of the court was not in issue within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1891, the direct appeal to this court was not properly brought, and the order must be
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bogart v. S. Pac. Co., 228 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1913)
-
Stein v. Bostian, 133 F.2d 586 (8th Cir. 1943)…s of the bankrupt estate to be administered.” Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, supra [p. 299 of 190 U.S., 23 S.Ct. at page 753, 47 L.Ed. 1061]. See also, Smalley v. Laugenour, 196 U.S. 93, 97, 98, 25 S.Ct. 216, 49 L.Ed. 400; Lucius v. Cawthon-Coleman Co., 196 U.S. 149, 151, 25 S.Ct. 214, 49 L.Ed. 425. If creditors of a bankrupt assert that property, while exempt generally, is not exempt from process to enforce their particular debts, they must resort to courts other than the court of bankruptcy to enforce payment…1 / 2
-
Imogene Goldsmith v. M. Jackman & Sons, Inc., 327 F.2d 184 (10th Cir. 1964)…eed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 52 S.Ct. 532, 76 L.Ed. 1054; Providential Development Co. v. United States Steel Co., 10 Cir., 236 F. 2d 277; Paull v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, 8 Cir., 313 F. 2d 612. . Lucius v. Cawthon-Coleman Co., 196 U.S. 149, 25 S.Ct. 214, 49 L.Ed. 425; 1 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 6.05, p.p. 805-808; 9 Am.Jur.2d, Bankruptcy, § 649, p.p. 490-491. . Smalley v. Laugenour, 196 U.S. 93, 25 S.Ct. 216, 49 L.Ed. 400; 1 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 6.05, p. 808.…
Authorities Cited
- Lockwood v. Exch. Bank, 190 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1903)
- Hutchinson v. Otis, 190 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1903)
- Denver First Nat'l Bank v. Klug, 186 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1902)
- Chin Ying v. The United States, 186 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1902)