The Portland daily press., 1871-08-10
The Jurisdietisn Of State Courts In MAJ.
tiers Of Bankruptcy.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. AUGUST 9th
sHEPLEY ,. PREsfDISG.
The opinion below involves questions of in
terest under the Bankrupt law. and we are
permitted TO copy the same entire.
JOHN Q scAMMAS ASSIGNEE PETITIONER %.
SAMUEL ". LuouKs. Ct al
BEFORE CLIFFORD AND sHKPLEY j. J.
ShepIsy Judge
This is petition addressed to the Circuit
Court to revise the decree OF the District
Court dismissing the petition Of John @. Scam
man, Assignee in Bankruptcy of Chadbourne
and Novel;, and denying the prayer in the Pc
titlon tor an injunction.
The respondents, Luques and Bryant,
brought suit, returnable to the Supreme Judic-
ial Court OF the State OF Maine, against the Pc
titioner, claiming to recover therein the sum
of four hundred and ffty-six dollars for rent of
building in Biddeford, alleging the building
to have been occupied by the petitioner from
the first of October, 1868, to the thirteenth of
November, 1859, which suit is now pending
The assignee thereupon presented his petition
to the District Court setting forth the facts,
with copy of the writ against him, and pray
ing that the plaintiffs be epjoined and restrain
ed from the further prosecution of the suit
against him.
The District Judge being of opinion that the
District Court has not jurisdiction to enjoin
the prosecution of such an action in the Su-
preme Court of the State, it was ordered that
the petition be dismissed and the injunction
denied.
The petition in this court assizes as causes of
error 10 the decree of the District Court,
First: That the occupancy of said store by
said Seaman being as such assignee, and the
claim in said action being against him as as
signee, as set forth in said decree, the subject
matter of said suit is therefore within the ex-
elusive jurisdiction OF said District Court in
bankruptcy and said sut in the Supreme
Court Of Maine should have been enioined.
Second: That because the claim of the said
Luques ct al. in said writ, named in said de-
cree, could only be supported by proof of the
allegations said writ that your petitioner
was assignee; therefore said suit should have
been epj0ined. %. r
THIRD: That in proof of the allegations Of
said writ evidence of the Office and official acts
of your petitioner as assignee would be admis-
sibe; therefore the case was not within the ju.
risdiction of said Supreme Court, and said
Laques ct al. should be enioined.
The respondents answer admits the COM
mencement and tendency of the suit in the
State Court; alleges that it is prosecuted
against the petitioner in his private and per-
sonal capacity; that no part OF the rent claimed
or sued for accrued until long after the bank.
ruptcy of ChadbOurne and NOVEL;; that part
of i. is for rent, use and occupation Of the
store used for the storage of the stock of mer.
chaedse held by him as assignee; and another
mart is for money received by him subsequent
TO his sale of .he stock aforesaid for the
rent, use and occupation OF said store. They
aver that the suit was not intended to be and
is not suit against him in his ofhcial capaci
ty. but a mere personal suit; and that when b.
is incidentally mentioned in the writ as the as
sigDee of Ohadbourne and NOVEL; ltls merei.
as descriptive and inducement.
Congress might have made an adJudlcation
in Bankruptcy operate pT0pr5 Utgero 10 VIII
draw all cases pending in Other courts at TN
time of the filing of the petition, to which TN
bankrupt should be party, from those trl1u
nails, and transfer them into the Districl
Court. 1t has not, however, done so. 1t moi
only has not deprived those courts Of iurisdic
ton over such cases, but it has provided fO
their prosecution and defence in those court
by the assignee. The power of those courts tt
proceed with pending suits in cases wher'
not prove, is, under prescribed limitations, rec
ognized by the bankrupt act.
tne fourteenth section provides that all thu
uauArupt rights OF action for property or es
tate, real or personal, and for any cause of &C
tion wnicn the bankrupt had against any per
sou arsing from contract or the unlawful TAX
ing or detention, or of injury to the property
and all MS rights OF redeeming such propert,
or estate, with The like right, title. mower an.
authority to sell, manage, dispose Of, sue fo,
ana recover OF oe,ehd the same, as the bank
rupt might or could have had, if no assign
ment had been made, shall in virtue of The I'D
Indication in bankruptcy and the apnointnan
of his assignee, be at once vested in snch az
signee 1t further provides that the ASSIGN
NAV sue for and recover such estate, and ma
prosecute and deiehd all suits at law or l
eonity pepdng at the time of the adiudcatio
of bankruptcy, in which the bankrupt is
nartv in his own name in the same mann,
and with like effect as they might have bee
prosecuted or defended by such bankrupt.
The 18th section provides that If at the tin
of the commencement of proceedings in ban
ruptcy an action is pending in the name OF