New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-02-16

shown To the District Court OF Connections
10y the supplementary petition of Seth Adams the Peu-
toniDc creditor in Massachusetts, bat notwithstanding
such decree the District Court OF Connecticut refused ~
allow Adams TO appear and resist the proceedings ~
that Court missed his petition, and adudicated VA
Company bankrupt. On petition OF review pIesT.o,
hy Adams 10 the Circuit Court, the September Tern,
1871 il was held that he was entitled be heard IN tne
District Court and that his petition ought no. w.
mon The facts ALLEGED In his neitions which were not
COntrOyercd. to direct that all further P IN der
the District Court for Connecticut be stayed I'd 0luer
that The District Court for Massachusetts might mere
after exercise exclusive jurisdiction iof Wv, crd,topa
he estate and distributing the same among the cieu'o's
Tho e oetition of Seth Adams heard In the Dis
F OK III and that Court decided, Feb n, 1871 that
ADAMS had no Standing in Court that stage of the pro-
ccedncs prior to adjudication in bankruptcy; ana
that he n NOT allowed to intervene 20 resist TO stay
the proceedings pending in this district but, on the a
plication OF the counsel OF Adams the Court allowed
argument which had March 3, 1871. when, In iur
hor support of Adamss claim to intervene his counsel
read evidence the decree OF the District Court LOT
Massachusetts, adudicating the Company bankrupt
The Court again refused to allow Adams to intervene
After the withdrawal OF the Company Of its answer to
the petition Of Alden praying that 1t be adudcated
was delivered TO the District Judge On March nc
signed it, kept it in his possession until after the
Teargfnent without notice to either or the parties
their attorneys, or to the Clerk OF the Court OF me
such decree the words, Filed March 1911. = b. On
denying the sad application OF eeth Adams nieed
such reargumen the District Judge announced these
facts in open Court delivered the said order or decree
adjudcatng the Company bankrupt TO the counsel Tor
cred by him Clerk OF the Court 10 be entered III the
minutes and records OF the Court: seth Adams there
upon presented his petition to the Circuit Court praying
ievew and reversal Of the SAID proceedings III tbe
District Court and that all proceedings IN bankruptcy
In the course long decision IN this case, gwen yes
terday in the United states Circuit Court Judge Wood
Ii is not only unfit but unreasonable TO continue pro
ceedngs in more than district and the case Is en
ncnty proper for the application OF the genera fue III
Courts Of Equity OF coordinate jurisdiction. that when
has first obtained jurisdiction OF the subject mater
and of the parties other Courts should stay her banas
and allow such Court TO carry the proceedings To con
summation and final disposition Of the matter in qnes-
ton All these, and perhaps, other Ike considerations
were suggested in the opinion delivered on the review
had III Connecticut Nothing is, think, more certain
contemplate any such complications ana deem IL
equally certain that nothing IN its provisions produces
any such necessary result The several District Courts
OF the United States are no. acting under authority d
rived from separate severe gntes they are not admin
isering separate systems laws they are not charged
with duty to afford special protection 10 the residents
within Their local 1 nr;dGon an %oh bciween
tribunals of different States, and operate 10 Sc
cure unequal ults among pates @ hv one
authority they Ite the same law; each IN the ad
minstration of the estate of a bankrupt will do precisely
what other District Court will dO governed by the
rules. and to the same end In the opinion re-
fcrred To- the bankrupt law was examined, and the
eral orders III bankruptcy made by the supreme Court
considered To rtain whether such proceedings
necessarily, if begun continued in more than one
District Court not then which District Court should
be deemed have priority of jurisdiction and be per
United TO go on and complete the administration and
finally, If the bankrupt. with view TO hinder ana en-
baTTass the winding of the affairs, stood by senty
cOuded with more OF the parties 10 produce
such embarrassment, would not take any measures 10
prevent the action OF either Court nor call To the ate
ton of either the fact that prior proceedings were Pe
ing in another district can creditor bring the matter
10 the attention OF the Court and ask that te pOCeeu
ings subsequently, commenced be stayed, III Order 10
avoid the expense and litigation about to arise TO the
prejudice OF creditors and to the waste OF the FUNDS Wch
creditors have right to sharef Inc Court dli hol a
the broad proposition that whenever creator mes
petition against his debtor for decree declaring suc
debtor bankrupt any other creditor at liberty, and
Of course appear and claim right to oppose snc
hndcred from entertaining the application for leave to
oppose by rigid technical rules governing actions al law
creditor should be heard and, different grounds. his
intervention might properly be effective: IL was a. a.
cOrdngly held that ii appearing 10 the Dstrct Court LOT
he was fbe pettionihr creditor in the Dis
trict Court for Massachusetts; that his pc
ttion there filed on Oct: A 1870; that the pc
District Court Massachusetts mad, March q 1871
decreed the Company bankrupt and issued us waIIht
TO the Marshal the District Court for Connecticut ought
to received the petition OF Adams ana stayed itS
further proceedings. Subsequent reflection aaed ny
ened the conviction that the order made IN HGut
which is open here is. whether the Dslct CoIt icr
Massachusetts should be accorded either a. mater
tice of Courts Of Equity having coordinate jurisdiction,
the same priority OF jurisdiction over the srct
Inv the Court for Connecticut 1t is suggested that there
is no express provision OF the Bankrupt law assigning 70
either Court priority when two or more pettcS are
flied against a corporate debtor and that number 10 OF
the general orders of the supreme Court III balhi
docs not Amply corporations at all but only 10 hturd
nersons or copartnershps composed OF individuals ii
fhs were conceded would not prevent the concession
which was there reached.
The result is that there is nothing in the case pre-
scented upon this review which wthdraws 1t IRON the
oueratlOn of the decisOn heretofore made as above
slated in the District Court of Connecticut In that ds
rict il was not deemed necessary TO reverse the aud
cation of bankruptcy which had been made the same
assignees who had been chosen and approved III s
chusetts had also been chosen and approved IN Con
necticut; and such double sanction could WORK no
preiudice 10 any party in interest. 1t was deemed
sufficient to stay any further proceedings Here am
informed an additional assignee was appointed that
out IT would of course, fall with reversal OF the adJu
dicatiOn in bankruptcy have no doubt OF tne po"eT
secure all interests and If the facts occurring are not
admitted to make proper inquiry 10 ascertain mem.
II will he sufficient TO all proceedings suDse-
nuent TO- or founded upon the adjudication OF bank
ruptcy and TO stay all further proceedings Oh the DIS