The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-12-20

OF comfy between the courts at all. The
suit In the State Court was actually
proceeding 10 Involuntary bankruptcy,
and the administration OF bankruptcy
properly belongs to the United States
Court. In this case, no recei yer had
been appointed by the State Court yet,
and the Uni!ed States District Court
could. therefore. with perfect propriety,
assert its Jurisdiction, without being re-
duced to the necessit of dispossesslng
receiver appointed by the other court.
Tho object and intent of the bankrupt
law, he contended, was to place tho ad
mlnistratiou Of the assets Of bank
rupt's estate within the control of the
Biakrupt Court. and the passage of the
law superseded or suspended all State
insolvent laws. Tho action of the State
Court must yield to the paramount au-
thority of the United States Court,
which authority was clearly given to it
by the Constitution of the United
States, and that Constitution expressly
reserves to Cungress the right to pass
uniform laws of bankruptcy. It was
clearly laid down in all the authorities
that the United States Court had full
power to suspend or control ali proceed.
ings in State Court against bankrupt
or his estate. This suspension or con-
troll would properly be effected by an
iniunction, az had been done in this
case. II had been we'll said, that thnre
was difference between insolvency and
bankruptcy. In this CASE, there was
certainly difference, aud it was not at
all uncertain that not ouly the creditors,
but even the stockholders. would be se-
cured. The action of the one creditor,
which might bs induced by desire to
have friend appointed receiver to get
the commissions, was not sanctioned by
the mujority Of the creditors, who were
co operating with the bank, aud de.ired
to prOtec. their interests by applying to
the B,nkrupt Court
Mr. Rion was followed by Mr. +. W.
alcMas!er. in behalf of the ban't Mr..
McMaster argued that there was no con-
hlct or clash of jurisdiction between the
United States and the State Court The
suit . Watson was simply the suit of u
deposltor or creditor at large The pro-
cecding was not, rs had been asserted,
an eq iitable one, aud it was perfectly
competent for the Bankrupt Court to
issue an Injunction to restrain his snit
until the asscts could be distributed
ratabiy among The creditors.
Mr.. j. D. Pope. in behalf of the
bank, said that the case had been so
thoroughly discussed by his colleagues.
that he would not take up the time of
the court with an extended argument,
but would simply submit list of his
authorities to be read by the court, aud
| considered in connection wi h the argn-
monts already made. He would only
state that, III his view of the law, the case
made by the petitioner in the State
Court was mere myth, and not q bar
to the subsequent proceedings in tho
United Suites Court.
MIR. A. q. Magrath closed the case in
reply for the petitioners. h. urged
that, as the decision of this court would
be final, it should be made with delibe
ration. The petitioners did not object
to the bank being sdjudicatcd a bank
rupt. The question was. had the Dis
triot Judge OF the United States Court
known of tho proceeding in the State
Court would be have issued the order
instructing the Registrar in Bankruptoy
to take possession of The assets of tho
bank? The plain proposition was that
the order OF Judge Bryan was in direct
violation Of tho order OF the State Court.
and the Injunction was granted hy Judge
| Bryan, without notice Of the petition
ers. who had Instituted the proceeding
in the State Court. Ii the Circuit Court
of the Stnte had jurisdiction in this case
an imine, the jurisdiction continued to
the end OF The suit. He concluded that
the orders had been improvidently
made, and should be put aside in order
to allow the case to be nrgued al. moro
and discussed in it's fullest sense. He
asked for the following order from the
court.
On hearing the petition in tho abovc
case, it is ordered that the Injunction
issued from the District Court, sitting
in bankruptcy, dated December 10,
! 1873, be set aside. 1t is further ordered,
that 80 much Of the order of the Dis.
trict Court, sitting in bankruptcy. as re.
quirts the Citizuns' Savings Bank of
South Carolina to forthwith surrender
into the hands of e. Nj. Seabrook all of
its property, of every value whatsoever,
inclnded in the schedules annexed to the
petition OF the bankrupt, be set aside:
1T being made to appear that at
the time of tho sail order, iuris.
diction oi he said property il
claimed to have been entered by the
Court OF Common Pleas for the Fifth
Circuit Of the State. Parties to any of
| these DrOCeediHus or such nscirnao NJ