The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1874-10-15
Bankruptcy.

An important case OF bankruptcy is on its way
to the Supreme Court Of the United States, as
we learn from the Lynchburg Press -
During the term of the District Court (Judge
Rives) at Lynchburg, which closed on the
Sd inst, Martin Webb filed bill in equity a.
gainst L. L. Niche, his assignee in Bankrupt
cy, which was duly docketed. The assignee
waived the process and at Dnce filed his an
sver, thus making an issue for the court to
hear and determine. The object of the bill is
to test the consttutionality of the act OF Con-
gress of the Sd of March, 1873, amendatory of
the bankrupt law of March 2a, 1867. usually
termed 'the homestead provision OF the bank
rupt law" by an appeal to the Circuit Court
aud thence to the Supreme Court. The bill
recites generally the right of the complainant to
his homestead exemption, his efforts to obtain
them by the statutory modes pointed out in
the District Court and on petition to the siper-
visory jurisdiction of the Circuit court.
''The decisions of these courts in denial of
his right, the latter court on the ground that
the amendment of March 81 is unconstitutioi-
al, and the former on the ground that the
court is bound by the decision OF the highe.'
court rendered in a former ense-that no right
Of appeal is allowed to complainant from the
supervisory decision OF the Circuit Court to the
Supreme Court, to which court it is his desire
to take his cause, and where, unless he can in
this mode, he is remedies. Thst the law is
not unconstitutional, but is with him, as we'll
as all the equities involved in the case, enti-
thing him to full relief as against those decis-
ions and all decisions to the contrary, and
praying that his exemptions may, notwithstan-
ding, be allowed, set off and confirmed to him
in accordance with the constitution Of Virginia
and the laws OF the United States.
The case coming up for hearing, on the bill,
exhibit and answer was dismissed. an appeal
was prayed for. and granted by the court and /
now goes to the Circuit Court where the appeal
Will BE- docketed without delay. An adverse
decision being rendered i'll the circuit court in
pursuance OF former decisions, as likely will be,
an appeal will be then taken to the highest jul
dicial tribunal il the United States, and de-
cision there sought which will be a finale to
this important and long mooted question of
hom sstead rights. Willard Of Washington, D.
for the Bankrupt. Judges Waite and Bond
hold that the act Of the 81 March 1873 is rncon-
stitoaa SO far as debts contracted prior to July
9th 1889 are involved. Waite on the ground
that that Law is not uniform in its operation;
while Bond places it Oh the ground that the
law is unconstitutional, unjust and subver-
sive of fundamental principles, and while they
agree as to the f.ial result re lcaed, yet differ
most widely in the modes by which it is reach
ed. 1t may be very properly presumed that
both cannot be right.
.'sThus, too, where Judge Bond, on the ground
he assumes, differs with Judge Waite, he is
supported by Judges Rives and Hughes; as,
Judge Waite is, also. by the same Judges where
he differs with Judge Bond. Hence, the
weight, if pot the heighth OF authority is in |
lavor Of the Censtitntionality Of the law, as
claim ID ia the bill OF Martin Webb before al |
uded to. At all events. the question at the |
ore sent time is one OF great practical itnpor-
ance, and it is the hope that the Supreme |
Court of the United States will soon hear, en-
ertail, carefully weigh, and properly decide it.