The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1874-03-16
bankrup.'s estate. Did it derive validity

bankrupt's estate. Did it derive validit
from the consent which The assignee CAV
to the decree rendered in accordance with
and execution OF, the agreement? Th
decree could only derive validity, if at all
from the consent Of the assignee. He di
consent. The only question is, had h
power to do so?
1t is clear that he had not such power
for several reasons. The assignee in bank
ruptcy is the creature of the laws OF Con
gress on that subject. He has no powe
but such as those laws give him. Ant
nowhere do they give an assignee power tt
become defendant to a suit, in another
court than the bankrupt court, commenced
after the petition and adjudication. He
may become party defendant to suit else
where which has been commenced agains,
the bankrupt before his petition, and which
may be pending at the time of the petition
but not to such a SUIT commenced after the
petition. In fact, the law does not contem-
plate the possibility of such q suit. Hav-
ing given full jurisdiction over the bank
rupt's estate to the bankrupt court, and
mindful of the mockery of doing so if
another court could appropriate that juris-
diction, after the adjudication, it does not
contemplate the possibility of an assignee
going into another court as defendant in
such a suit, and nowhere gives him au-
thority to do so.
1t gives the assignee power to go out into
other courts, and sue as plaintiff in right of
the estate; its language being, :" he may
sue and recover the said estate, debts and
effects" 1t gives him power to prosecute
as plaintiff suits thus commenced by him
self after the adjudication, or suits which
may have been commenced bv the bank
rupt, and may be pending at the time of the
bankruptcy. But it confines his power to
appear as defendant, to suits which acre
pending at the date of the bankruptcy its
language being: "He may defend all
suits at law or in equity pending at the
time of the adjudication of bankruptcy, in
which such a bankrupt is a party in his
own name, in the same manner and with
the like effect as they might have been de-
Tended by such bankrupt" but for the
bankruptcy.
The suit in the circuit court for Mont
gomerY having been commenced after the
adjudication, the assignee had no power to
become defendant in it; his doing so was
of no validity to bind the estate; and any
consent which he may have given to the
proceedings in that suit was null and void.
1t is useless, therefore, to consider the
question whether the state court had juris-
diction of general creditors bill against
this bankrupt after his adjudication. Being
cirilaer mortuus as to the estate, his being
a party to this suit was nudity; and his
assignee having no power to be party to
the suit, his being made so was nullity.
The suit itself was therefore suit er
pdrte as to this estate, and its proceedings
can in no manner bind it. | will say,
however, on this question Of jurisdiction
that l know OF no case, in any of the re-
ports, of q general creditors suit in
chancery being brought in another court
than the court of bankruptcy against the
bankrupt after his adjudication. assume
such a proceeding to be wholly anomalous.
The law contracts with the bankrupt
that in consideration of. his surrendering
his whole estate Certain exemptions ex-
cepted). for the benefit of his creditors, he
shall be discharged of all debts provable
against him existing at the date of adjudi-
cation. 1t provides court to execute this
contract, and it gives that court full and
control Of his estate for that pur-
pose. For the law to allow any of these
creditors to go into another court after the |
has made his surrender, for the |
purpose of asserting control over the estate,
would be to break faith with the other |
creditors and the bankrupt himself, and |
convert the whole proceeding in the bank.
'upt court into mockery and fraud. The
)retension to such jurisdiction does not |
bear serious examination nor deserve it.
am free to say that if the agreement |
n writing Of the 10th of Dec. mber, 1872,
which has been mentioned, had been ac-
,eded to and signed by the assignee,
Ind were here now for adjudication, | |
should make it the basis OF decree SIM
lar to that entered by the local court,
lnless very strong cause should be shown
o the contrary.
I will sign an order continuing the re.
training order given by this court On
he Goth July, 1878, but basing it on the
grounds set forth in this decision.
This caused ought to have been removed
% the Western district long ago. | will
lirect its removal at any time that motion
nay be made for the order.
A VALUABLE Work OF ART.-Mr.
John Perry, No. 40 Franklin street, the
agent for the reproduction of Boydell's |
of Shakespeare, has nearly
his delivery of part the second
If the admirable work in question. The
book is published by Messrs. Gebbie &
Barrie, 730 Samson street, Philadelphia,
Ind sold only to subscribers. The cele-
nrated pictures, a reproduction of which,
On diminished scale, is intended to be
furnished by these gentlemen, are obtained |
by the heliotype process-a recent discoy-
erv-and is as affective in shading and out. |
line asthe most finished steel engraving. The
Boydell Shakespeare wheL completed will
consist of twenty-five numbers, delivered
semi-monthly, each number containing
four plates, accompanied by selections
from text Of the dramas illustrating each
scene represented by the painter. The
work is edited by j. Parker Norris, esq
Part second contains Trolius and Crasida
Julius Caesar. King Henry the Sixth, and
Cymbeline. Each one of the originals
cost vast sum of money, and was from
the BURN of some celebrated English paint
er as high up in the art world as the most
favored mortals usually get.
A WRINKLE FOR OUR BUTCHERs.-
In some portions of Texas cattle are killed
alone for their hide and tallow. The latter
is obtained by thrusting the eatire carcass
after it has been denuded of its skin into
huge watts, where, after undergoing boiling
process the fat which rises to the surface