The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1877-09-27
TMreklg dimes
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER q, 1877.
svpREuE coUKT DECISION.


In the case of Horace =. Clafiin. plain
tiff in error VS.. Julius Houseman, assignee
in bankruptcy OF ID. B. Comstock and Van
Z. Young, the Supreme Court OF the Uni
ted States. has decided that an assignee In
bankruptcy may sue in the state courts to
recover the assets of a bankrupt The &C
tiop in which this decision was rendered,
was brought in May, 1872, in the New
York Supreme Court, by Julius Houseman,
as assignee in bankruptcy Of Comstock and
Young, against Horace b. Oafin, under
the thirty-fifth section of the Bankrupt act
10 recover the sum Of 81 1851, being the
amount collected by Clafiin on a iudg-
ment against the bankrupts, recovered with
in four months before the commencement OF
proceedings in bankruptcy. The ground OF
the action, as stated in the complaint, was
that they 1.-THE bankrupts) suffered the judg-
ment to be taken by default, with intent to
give Clafin preference over the other
creditors at a time when they were insol-
vent, and when he knew, or had reasonable
cause to believe, that they were insolvent,
and that the judgment was obtained in
fraud of the Bankrupt law. The defendant
demurred to the complaint, assigning as
cause, that the court had no juris LECTION of
the subject OF the action. Judgment was
rendered for the plaintiff on January IL,
1873, and was subsequently, affirmed both
by the general term OF the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals OF New York.
This judgment was brought TO the Supreme
Court of the United States, by writ OF error
under the act OF 1867, which supersedes the
twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary act, and
was affirmed.
The opinion was delivered by Justice
Bradley, and was as follows:
The point principally relied on by the
plaintiff in error is, that an assignee in bank
ruptcy cannot sue in the State Counts. 1t is
argued that the cause of action arises purely
and solely out of the provisions Of en- act of
Congress, and can only be prosecuted in the
Courts of the United States, the State Courts
having no Jurisdiction over the subject. 1t is
but recently settled that the several District
and Circuit Courts of the United States have
Jurisdiction under the Bankrupt law, of eau
ses arising out of proceedings in bankruptcy
pending In other districts. There had been
much doubt on the subject, but it was finally
settled AT the last term of this court in favor
Of the jurisdiction. Lathrop agt. Drake, 81
u. S. Rep ,5l6.) Had the decision been other
wise, as for a long period was generally sup
posed TO be the law, assignees in bankruptcy,
if the position of the plaintiff in error is cor
rect, would have been utterly without rem
edy to collect the assets of the bankrupt in
districts other than that IN which the bank
ruptcy proceedings were pending. Neither
the State Courts nor the Federal could have
entertained jurisdiction. The Revised Stat
utes, whether Inadvertently or not, have
made the jurisdiction of the Unit ID States
courts exclusive in " ali matters and proceed
ings in bankruptcy" (Section ILL., Whether
this section will or will not affect the cogniz-
ance OF plenary actions and suits, IL Is not
neco ssary now TO determine. AT all events,
the ques. ION of such cognizance must be met
in this case, and being important in the prin-
ciples involved, would require much consid-
Grafton, had il not been al, eady in effect de-
cided by the Court.
The laws of the United STATE are as much
the law of the land in any State, as State
laws are and although, in their enforcement,
exclusive jurisdiction may be given TO the
Federal Courts, yet, where such exclusive jur-
isdiction Is not given, or necessarily implied
the State courts, having competent jurisdio-
ton in other respects, may be resorted 10. In
such eases, the Safe courts do not exert SO a
new jurisdiction conferred upon them, but
their ordinary jurisdiction derived ON their
Constitution under the a. Jaw.