JACOB STRADER, ROBERT BUCHANAN, JOHN MCCORMICK, JOHN R. CORAM, JOSEPH SMITH, JAMES JOHNSON, AND GEORGE C. MILLER, TRUSTEES OF THE COMMERCIAL BANK OF CINCINNATI,
v.
HENRY BALDWIN
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 trustees of the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati sued Henry Baldwin to recover a debt, which Baldwin defended by claiming discharge under the federal Bankruptcy Act of 1841, while the bank disputed the validity of the discharge on grounds that the debt arose from Baldwin's fiduciary position as a bank clerk. The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act, the Court could only review state court decisions where a federal statute was "specially set up or claimed" by the party seeking review, and here only the defendant had invoked federal bankruptcy law while the plaintiffs relied solely on state law grounds.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is brought here by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Ohio. As the power of this court to review the decisions of State tribunals is limited to certain specified cases and conditions, the first inquiry which necessarily presents itself 'is* whether we have -jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs in error instituted this suit in the Superior Court of Cincinnati. The declaration has the common counts in assumpsit. The defendant appeared and pleaded his discharge under the act of Congress of the 19th of August, 1841, to “ establish a uniform system of bankruptcy, &c.” The plaintiffs denied the validity of this discharge, on the ground that the debt was incurred by defendant while acting as clerk or book-keeper in the Commercial Bank, and thérefore “ acting in a fiduciary capacity.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs prosecuted their writ of error to this court.
The twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, which is the only source of our authority in cases like the present, gives this court jurisdiction to “ reexamine'” the judgment of a State court only where the decision “ is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption specially set up or claimed” under an act of Congress.
The plaintiffs in this case have set up no act of Congress in their pleadings, under which they support their claim or title to recover. It is the defendant who has pleaded a privilege or exemption under a statute of the United Stat>-3, and relies upon it as his only defence. If the decision of - the State court had been against him, his right to have his case reexamined by this court could not be doubted. But the decision has been in favor of the right set up under the statute, the validity of which was denied by the plaintiffs. We have no jurisdiction to entertain a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Ohio at their suggestion.
This case must, therefore, be dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, within and for the County of Hamilton, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is .now here ordered and adjudged 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
-
Second Employers' Liability Cases. Mondou v. New York, 223 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1912)
-
McCORMICK v. Mkt. Bank, 165 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1897)…discharge from all his debts, with certain exceptions, among which were debts created by his fraud or embezzlement, or by his defalcation as a public officer, or while acting in a fiduciary character. Kev. Stat. §§ 5114, 5117. In Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How. 261, indeed, under the like pro [*547] vision of á former bankrupt act, where a bankrupt, being sued upon a debt, pleaded his discharge, and the plaintiff replied that the debt was contracted while acting in a' ñduciary capacity, and the decision of the…
-
Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1891)…exemption under a law of Congress. But in order to give jurisdiction, something moré'is'necessary; the judgment of the state court must be against the right claimed.” Like rulings were made in Gordon v. Caldeleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How. 261; Burke v. Gaines, 19 How. 388; Hale v. Gaines, 22 How. 144; Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420; and Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall. 603. None of the cases cited by the relator involve the question .here presented, and the writ of error must be Dismissed for th…
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