The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1874-03-16
CITY NEWS.
INTERESTING DECISION IN BANK
RUPTCY.


Can Judgment Creditor Bring
Chancery suit In u State Com
Against bankrupt, After HIS Ad
Indication 10 subject Real Estate {
Liens, and to Distribute Its Proceed
among Creditors
In the district court of the United State
for the eastern district of Virginia, Rober
w. Hughes, presiding, 7. E. Sullivan an,
j. j. Wade. counsel for creditors, Genera
@. A. Ronald, for bankrupt. The judg
filed the following decision in writing il
the papers in the cause:
In the matter Of Geo. W Anderson bankrupt:
Anderson filed his petition in this cour
on the 18th December, 1868; on the 26tl
January, 1869, he was adjudicated bank
rupt by the Register. In his schedules he
surrendered large real estate in Montgom
cry county, including his interest in a tract
of 200 acres of land on Mill creek, in.
herited by his wife, Sarah j. Anderson,
from her father.
The debts shown by his schedules
amounted to some $25, 900 OF more, oil
which $4,000 were judgment liens. G.
b. Gardner was appointed his assignee.
Anderson received his discharge in bank
ruptcy on the 18th November, 1872.
Some time in the latter part of 1869 q
general creditors bill was brought in the
circuit court of the state for Montgomery
county, by the executors of James R..
Kent, holding judgment lien for about
SO, 760. against Geo. W. Anderson, his as
sgnee in bankruptcy, and his other judg-
ment creditors, as defendants. There is
no copy of the record Of that suit in this
court, but both Anderson and his assignee
answered the bill. sd
That suit went on Ia the circuit court OF
Montgomery until the Goth December 1879,
when an agreement in writing was entered
into by j. j. Wade, attorney in fact for the
judgment creditors on one part, and by
Anderson and his wife on the other part,
but in which the assignee of the bankrupt
did not join, by which 1T was stipulated, in
substance, that the tract on Mill creek and
probably some other of the real estate
mentioned in the creditors bill should be
divided into four parts, one of which parts,
or so much as might be necessary,
should be sold IN satisfaction of the judg-
ment debt to Kent's estate and costs
another part should be settled on Mrs.
Anderson and the other two parts should
be sold for payment Of the remaining debts
of the bankrupt according to their priori-
ties. There was privy acknowledgment
of this writing by Mrs. Anderson.
This writing seems to have been executed
under circumstances of pressure brought to
bear on Anderson and his wife. One of its
stipulations was, that it should be put into
the form Of decree by the circuit court OF
and that court did instonter
On the day the agreement was executed
render decree carrying out its stipula-
ions, appointing L. E. Sullivan and John
Gardner its commissioners to make sale of
the lands.
This cause did not come formally before
this court until the Goth July, 1878, when
Anderson filed his petition here, one of the
in which was, that 'twhen your
petitioner was adjudicated bankrupt, a
suit aoas pending in the circuit court of
Montgomery to subject your petitioners
lands" &c. In that petition Anderson
prayed for the exemption to him of
81, 900 homestead out of the lands which
had been the subject of the written
agreement of the Goth December, 1872.
He also prayed for a restraining order
against Sullivan and Gardner, commission
srs, forbidding the sale of the real estate
ordered to be sold by the decree of the
ocal court. This court granted the re-
'training order thus asked for, and the
notion now, on the part of the commls-
'ioners is, to dissolve that order.
l will say passim that the restraining
order cannot stand longer on that prayer
IF the petition. The homestead exemption
S not allowable to Anderson, and the re-
'training order granted for its protection
cannot stand longer on that ground.
This petition having alleged that the
,hancery suit in the local court ,cas pending
when the petitioner was adjudcated a |
bankrupt, this court was misinformed as
% the material fact that that suit had been
brought after the adjudication in bank
ruptcy.
A further disguise of this fact was effect
I'd by the "Abstract of Proceedings" filed
n this cause by the register, H. G. Glib
oons, which is false in all its dates, and
which post-dates the filing of the petition
Ind all subsequent proceedings by twelve
months. Whether that post-dating was
mistake or device, does not appear.
. The same petitioner filed another petition
here on the 28th November, 1873, aleg-
ng, amongst other things, that "siace
fling his original petition in bankruptcy,
'and after this court had taken jurisdiction
n the premises, the executors of James R.
Kent filed q creditors bill in the circuit
court for Montgomery county," &C., &C.,
md praying that the parties in said suit,
heir attorneys and all other persons may
be restrained from proceeding further in
said suit, and that all matters touching his
'state as a ba,ak7uptmay be adjudicated and
settled here in this court.
His wife, Sarah j. Anderson, by her
next friend, has also come to this court, in
4 petition which | find in the papers, but
The date of the filing of which is not noted,
reciting the material facts bearing upon her
title to the ,200-acre tract ofland which has
been mentioned and praying, among other
things, that her interests in the same may
be protected.
Thus is this court called upon to take
action in the premises, for the first time
since its knowledge OF the fact that the
creditors suit brought in the local court,
rs mentioned. was brought after the ad-
Indication of Anderson as q bankrupt.
Upon the facts as they have been re-
cited have to say as follows:
The written agreement of goth Decem-
Der, 1872, cannot bind the bankrupt's
estate; first, because it was not signed by
the assignee and second, because the sig
nature Of George w. Anderson, who was
civiliter mortuus was nulity so far as tue
estate was concerned.