The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-05-10

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CJ.
Without reciting all the former
proceedings in this matter, it Is only
necessary to state for the proper I'M
Outstanding of the case that claims
Of The assignees of another bankrupt
estate against the bankrupt Tai Lung
were duly presented and sworn to
and were thereafter disputed by the
assignee, who refused to admit them
to q dividend. The motion to be
allowed to prove these claims before
the Justice then sitting was opposed
by the assignee on the ground that
the Bankruptcy Court had no juris-
diction to try the validity of these
claims at that stage of the proceed
ings. This plea was heard by the
Court below and overruled and an
appeal thereon was taken to this
Court. It is commended by former
counsel, Mr.. Carter, in this case
that as e Bankruptcy Court is one OF
limited and special jurisdiction, de-
irving its authority solely from the
statute, any excess OF these limits Ia
void and its power cannot be en-
larged by implication. Such juris-
diction thus depriving the parties of
the right of trial by jury is unconsti-
tutionai.
Our statute specially confers juris-
diction upon the Court in Bank
ruptcy to hear proof OF claims in the
first instance. If there is no opposi-
ton to claim, the proof is formally
made by the oath of the claimant be-
fore the Justice. If it is opposed by
by ether claimants it is tried on its
merits before the Justice, whose de
cision is subject to an appeal to
Jury. Sections and 8, Chapter
XXXV, Laws of 1884.
The law further provides (Section
81 that creditors may prove their
claims at any time before the dis
charge of the bankrupt, but shall
participate only in such dividends as
may be declared after the proof of
their claims.
The Act of 1888 (Chapter XXID
in Section z, further provides by an
amendment to Section s of the Act
of 1884, that the assignee may dis
pnte a claim latter it has been proved
by oath of the claimant), but he must
notify the claimant of this within
one month after proof of the claim.
The law now allowing either a cred
itor or the assignee to dispute a
claim, it is reasonable to presume
that the same Court which hears the
objection made by the creditor shall
hear the objection when made by
the assignee.
It is not necessary that the statute
should contain words directly giving
jurisdiction for each further stage of
the proceedings. Having given
power to the Judge to hear proof OF
claims the jurisdiction is continued
whether the claim be contested by a
creditor or by the assignee.
"The authority, however, to do GER
tain acts, or to exert certain degree
of power, need not be given in ex-
press words, but may be fairly in
ferred from the language OF the sta
tute, or if it be necessary to accom-
plish its objects and to the just and
useful exercise of the powers which
are expressly given, it may be taken
for granted" Dubois vs. Sands, 43
Barb, 415.
Effect must, of course, be given
/ to the intention, when the Act, with
out comforting Jurisdiction in express
terms, does so by plain and necessary
implication" Endlich on Intepreta-
ton of Statutes, Section 156.
To send a claimant whose claim is
denied by the assignee to the courts
of law for adjudication would result
in delay, confusion and clashing of
| jurisdictions.
In the Bankruptcy Court, as in the
Probate Court, the fund, the res, Is
under the Jurisdiction and super
vision of the Court, and the assignee
is subject to its direction as to its
disposition. This is so because there
are numerous parties whose rights
are involved and oftentimes distinct,
and which cannot be decided in an
action at law. The Jurisdiction OF
the Bankruptcy Court to entertain
and settle disputed claims we are OF
the opinion should be sustained.
The answer that this would be
unconstitutional in depriving parties
of the right to trial by jury is OBJ
vious. This is not case In which
trial by jury has heretofore been
used" The parties have an appeal
to jury provided for in the statute.
Paa VS.. Richardson, z Haw., 301.
The plea to the jurisdiction is over.
ruled, and the claimants may proceed
with their proofs before a Circui;
Court Judge of the First Circuit
under the new Judiciary Act.
A. s. Hartwell for claimants G.
l.. Carter and G. Brown for j. Ruben
stein, assignee.
Honolulu, April 26, 1893.