Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1842-08-02

LA uu9G cIOFl OF tHcO. . supreme
Court has de- that the Bankrupt Law
of the U. s = going into operation,
in Feb ?, ipSo facto, suspended
all actjoa ure cases arising under
state Insd avs, where the insoIvent
persons al thin the puryiew of the
Bankrupt IN othe- words. that the
Bankrupt Il has superseded state Iegis
lation on q kubject. Should this dcci.
Sion ofthis eminent iurist be well founded
all discharges from debts under s tate law,
since the passage Of the Bankrupt Acts
viii be nugatory; and It may even be ques
ionable whether the privilege of the pri
son bounds, which is an incident of most
Estate insolvent laws may not DO seriously
affected
We give the following extract from the
decision:
N pinion is, that, as soon as the
Bar Act went into operation in Feb
rug it. ipsO fdcto suspended all ac-
tid future cases; arising under the
81 Event laws, where the insovent
.p kerewithn the purvew of the
b Act. | say future cases, be.
cal different considerations would,
or apply, where proceeding under
any nsolvent laws we're COM
menS and were in progress before
the tkrupt Act went into operation
It appe.rs to me that both systems can
not be in operation or apply a,the same
persons: and where the state and national
legislation upon the same persons come
in conflict, the national laws mustlprevail,
and suspend the operation Of thestate
laws. This, as far as | know, has been
the uniform doctrine maintained mall the
courts Of the United States.
Indeed, consider the whole matter in
effect disposed OF by the reasoning ofthe
supreme court in the case of StHrgiS V.
| CrouninshieH, 8 Weatcn R. 1922. Mr.
Justice Washington and myself were Of
opinion in that case, that the power to
pass bankrupt law was exclusively vest.
ed in Congress by the constitution of the
United States; and that nc state could
pass a bankrupt law, or an insolvcnt law
having the effect of a bankrupt anywhere
ii discharge the debtor from the obligation
Of his PRIOR contracts.* Mr.. Justice Todd
was absent from indispositjon, and there
fore did not sit in the cause. The other
four members Of The court Constituting a
majority concurred in tho decision, which
was pronounced by Mr.. Chief Justice
Marshall. But all the court were agreed,
that when Congress did pass a Bankrupt
Act, it was supreme, and that the state
laws must yield to it, and could no longer
operate upon persons or cases within the
purvlcw OF such aci. The enactment Of
such an act suGended the state laws on
the same subject, and created a disability
in the states 10 exercise powers Of the like
nature. The court northumberland as.
serted that the Bankrupt Act Of 1900, CHI.
XIX, had that very operation, except so far
as the sixty. first section of the act mcdif-
ed or allowed the exercise of the power
by the statest The case Of Ogden V.
Saunders, (12 Wheat. R. 2l3, 264. goo,
273, l76, 278, 296. 81, 3l4,) fully re.
cognsed, and has always been understood
to confirm and settle the same principle.
1t seems to me, therefore, that nothing re.
mains, upon which an argument can be
founded, that the insolvent laws of Massa-
chusetts are not, as to persons and cases
within the provisions Of the Bankrupt Act
completely suspended. Each system is
to act upon the same subject matter, upon
the same property, upon the same rights
and upon the same persons--crcdItors as
well as debtors. Both cannot 90 on to
gether without direct and positive COLI
sion; and the moment, that the Bankrupt
Act does or may operate upon the person
or case, that moment it virtually suPerse
ded all state legislation.
| shall, therefore, direct it to be certlfi
ed 10 the district court, that in this case
) by law an injunction can be issued agatns
the said Ayres, as prayed for in the pet!
ton Of Games.
*See Mr.. Justice Washington's opinion il
Ogden V. Saunders az Wheaton r. 1862
264.)
; 1863
It'd. p. 1Ol, 1902
New EvIEENCE.--A nose knocked