SAMUEL T. PULLIAM AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDMUND CHRISTIAN, ASSIGNEE, IN BANKRUPTCY OF WILLIAM ALLEN
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 bankrupt's assignee challenged a trust deed executed by William Allen to pay his debts, claiming it was fraudulent under the bankrupt law, and the Circuit Court ordered the deed set aside and referred various matters to a commissioner for accounting. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Circuit Court's decree was interlocutory rather than final because it did not resolve all matters in controversy, leaving the accounting and final disposition of property to be determined by the commissioner.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.
• This is an appeal in chancery from the Circuit Court of the Eastern District of Virginia.
- This case arises under the bankrupt law. William Allen, a merchant-tailor in Richmond,, being embarrassed, conveyed his whole property to the plaintiffs, as trustees, to pay his debts. In the trust-deed he divides his creditors into two classes, the first of which was to be fully, paid before the. second received any thing. Shortly after this, he took the benefit of the bankrupt law. The assignee in bankruptcy filed his bill to impeach the above conveyance, as fraudulent under the bankrupt law.
In their decree, the Circuit Court ordered that the deed executed; by Allen, as above stated, should be set aside. And, without deciding how far the trustees may be liable to the assignee for the sums received for the proceeds of the property, which may have been paid over by.them to the creditors of Allen before they received notice, &c., the court ordered feud decreed that the trustees should deliver over the property conveyed to them which had not been disposed of, and that they render an account to one of the commissioners of the court of all the property which came to their hands, or either of them, by virtue of said deed, and of moneys paid to the creditors, &c.; which account the said commissioner is directed to -state and settle, and report the same to the court, With any matters specially stated deemed pertinent by himself, or which may be required by the parties, in order to a final decree.
This decree is final only as to the trust-deed. All the matters arising under the trust axe referred to a commissioner for a statement of the account, to enable the court to enter a final decree. There is no sale; or change of the property ordered which can operate injuriously to the parties. • Under such circumstances, the decree not being final as to the whole matter in controversy, the appeal must be dismissed.
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District Of Virginia, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, and it appearing to the court here that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause is an interlocutory and not a final one, it is thereupon now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that this cause be and the' same is hereby dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heverle v. Rasmussen, 103 Fla. 76 (Fla. 1931)…but where anything remains to be done which may be the subject of later exception or appeal the decree is not regarded as final. Bellamy v. Bellamy, 4 Fla. 242; Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 Howard 206; 12 L. Ed. 406; Pulliam v. Christian, 6 Howard 212; 12 L. Ed. 408. A decree is not a final decree which does not dispose of the whole matter in controversy between the parties. Barnard v. Gibson, 7 Howard 650, 12 L. Ed. 857. Considering the decree as interlocutory only, we would be required to decide whether or n…
-
McGOURKEY v. Toledo & Ohio Cent. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1892)…ere the Circuit Court decreed that complainants were entitled to two-sevenths of certain property, and referred the matter to a master to take an account of it, the. decree "was held hot to be final. And again in the next case, Pulliam v. Christian, 6 How. 209, a. decree setting aside a deed by a bankrupt, directing the trustees under the deed to deliver up to the assignee all the property in their hands, and directing an account to be taken of the proceeds of sales previously made, was also held not to b…
-
Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1889)…he decree was not final and was not appealable. The principal cases in which it has held that the decree was not appealable,- because not final, are the following; The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502; Perkins v. Fourniguet, 6 How. 206; Pulliam v. Christian, 6 How. 209; Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106; Railroad, Co. v. Swasey, 23 Wall. 405 ; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Grant v. Phœnix Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 4…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence