The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-10-06
s s,ntss supreme Court.

-, p,SKsupTCY UPON SUITS PENDING
Effh ~ WHICH VI THE BANKRUPT IS PARTY.
u-,sy,yc7oS, October 3.-The following
,S;.;ons have been rendered:
decsss s;s,ion S. Euster, plaintiff Il, error IS.
~ ' ..,os cat and James W. Cat. In error
1hoH"SS ,,nrsmc Court OF the Territory of
fo ,nr This SUIT was an action Of eject
t"l"' brought originally by Thomas and
men Gatf against plaintiff in error in the
1 IAN; Court OF Arapaboe county, Colo
p' VI. II which the plaintiffs below had re-
fa'", and that Judgment was affirmed on
COL nv the Supreme Court Of that Terri
s!l The title to certain lots in Denver
1 r;,; !. the subject OF controversy,
81; .hcre seems 10 be no difficulty
IN" cons;dcrins George w. Mcclure
J" .ho source of title, common to plaintiffs
"a a. ~; ascendant. Mcclure had made mort.
, ,,,' on the lots to defendants in error to
ssncnrc naymcnt of the sum OF $4,000. A
Suit N iorcclosc this mortgage was 1nsti-
,,tcd in the District Court IN 1865. Wnich
nrocccded to decree anu saic, ana pia,u-
t;as became the purchasers, receiving tue
masters deed. which was duiv coph1nlea
NV thc court This decree was rendered
In,v !. 1910. On the 9th day Of May pre-
rrding, the mortgagor, Mcclure. nlea pc.
,;t,on in bankruptcy. and on the llth gay OF
Nav he was adiudged bankrupt; ana on
thc 4th day OF june. John Mecktng was
Jn,r amounted assignee. The bankrupt
tInd schedules, in which these lots and the
,nor,race OF the CATS on them were set
nnt. II will thus be seen that pending the
,orrc,osrrc proceedings which had been
instituted against Mcclure, he had been
declared bankrupt, and Mcckling
Mad been appointed his assignee, and
.ba, the decree OF sale and foreclosure
nnJcr which plaintiff asserted title in the
mrrsrn, suit was rendered about month
after the appointment Of the assignee, and
early TWO months after the adjudication
,h,, Mcclure was bankrupt. The defend
ant in the ciectment suit was tenant under
Mcclure. and defends his possession on the
.,ro,,nd Of the inralidity Of the foreclosure
9rorrrdn~S after the adjudication OF bank
run,ry and the appointment OF me assignee.
.rhn riIointitS in this suit seem to have re-
lied At first upon the right to recover under
I'm. mortgage and did not give in evidence
The proceedings in foreclosure, but when
The defendant had read them, so Tar rs the
decree and sale, in order to show that
the mortgage was merged, the paint
ills then produced the masters deed.
The Supreme Court OF Colorado held
that the mortgage alone was sufhclent
IA sustain the action, one OF the Judges dis
.cutiug. and counsel for defendant below
insists here that this was error, because the
laws OF Colorado give to mortgage only
rho cff,r, Of an equitable lien, and not that
NJ conveying legal title. He also insists
that allthe proceedings ia the foreclosure suit
after the appointment of the assignees in
hankrup;cv are absolutely void because he
WAS not made 4 defendant. We will consider
this latter proposition first, for If the fore
closure proceedings convey valid title to
ulaintitis the Judgment must be affirmed,
wbatcvcr NAV be the true solution OF the
question of local law. 1t may be conceded
Tor the purposes OF the present case that
that the strict legal title to the land did not
pass BY the mortgage, and that it dld
pass 10 the assignee upon his appoint
mcnt: and consequently il. that title
was not Invested by The foreclosure pro-
cecdng> il was in the assignee at the trial
ii the cjcctment suit. On the other hand,
il these proceedings did transfer the legal
title to plaintiffs, they were entitled to re-
cover Il, they did in that action. At the
time thai suit was commenced the mort
oauor. Mcclure. was vested with the title,
and was the proper and necessary defend
ant. Whether any other persons were pro-
per defendants does not appear, nor IS 1t
material 10 inquire. But for the bankruptcy
OF Mcclure there can be no doubt that the
sale under the foreclosure decree and deed
OF the master would have vested the
title IN The purchaser, and that this
would have related back to the date of the
mortgage The Court, it is said, had ac-
quired jurisdiction OF the parties and of the
subjcct-matter Of the suit. 1t was compe-
tent to administer full justice, and was pro-
cecdng according to the law which gov
erncd sucii suit to do so. 1t could not
take judicial notice OF the proceedings In
bankruptcy in another court. 1t was the
duty OF that court to proceed to decree as
between the parties before it until proper
proceedings informed it OF the changed re-
lations OF any of the parties to it. Having
such jurisdiction, its decree is valid. And
there is nothing in the bankrupt law which
sanctions the proposition that it avoids, OF
its own force. all judicial proceedings in the
state or other courts when one OF the par
ties is adiudged bankrupt. Affirmed.
Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion.