The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-01-07

which gives " ~ Act rational Una co.,
sistent Interpretation can and should bt
evolved from the fact itself that the acl
Of making gensrs sasienment u . wrong
ful act done to the creditors, and, like Other
wrongful act, can be avoided By the parties
wronged and injured thereby.
The act can not. IN my opinion, be wrong
full and at the same time available TO tbs
debtor or his assignee holdnE NECESSARILY
With legal knowledge Of the wrong commit
ted. to Justify. them in retaining the fruits
Of the wrongfw act. II follows that the
adjudication OF Bankruptcy at the instance
OF ones creditors, on the ground that tn:
debtor has made general assignment FOL
tho benefit OF his creditors. avoids the as
signment itself and subjects the property
assigned to the jurisdiction OF this court
to be administered here by the creditors
under and pursuant to the provisions OIL
the act OF congress which they have In.
voked. do not think this construction
IL at variance with the decisions OF the
supreme court OF the United States already
cited in constituting the provisions OF tbs
bankruptcy act Of 1867.
Subdivision b reinforces the prohibition
Of subdivision q, but in this instance the
prohibition is addressed to the trustee
instead Of the circuit courts, MS found In
subdivision a. but both subdivisions when
same subject matter. and that 10 to the
jurisdiction Of the United States circuit
courts and to that alone. They limit the
Jurisdiction Of such courts to hear and
determine such action, only between q
trustee and an advance claimant as the
bankrupt himself might have prosecuted
against such claimants In those courts, be-
cause OF diversity Of citizenship. and re-
quire the trustee when asserting claim
through the right OF title Of the bankrupt
to resort to State court unless the bank
rupt might have resorted to Fede.al
court. This section, taken as a whole. APP
pears to me to be only a curtailment Of
the jurisdiction OF tbs circuit courts and
not at all apIlicable to district courts OF
their Jurisdiction, as already in the act cDn-
ferreG upon them. This is the more mani
fest when 1t is considered that district
courts as such are not mentioned in this
section, whiia tho circuit cnurts are IN
terms alone referred to IN sub divisions a
and c. Subdibision b is found located im-
mediately between subdivisions a and G.
and In an act comforting broad and COIN
prehensive jurisdiction upon tho district
courts as courts OF bankruptcy.
Now applying two familiar rules OF con-
str7iction OF statutes, one Of which Is con-
densed in the maxim noscitur sociis. the
other requiring the courts to so construt
an act as to give force and effect to each
and all Of ITS, parts, am disposed to hold
that subdivision tb) relates TO the same
subject matter as that found in the imme'
diately preceding and following subdivi-
sicns. namely, to the jurisdiction OF the
circuit courts of the United States and
particularly TO the matter OF providing
a remedy which is there taken from such
courts. and that this subdivision finds full
scope for application In such Gases in which
the district court in charge OF the given
cause, because of the fact that the debtor
or adverse claimant resides without the
territorial limits OF its jurisdiction, can
not afford remedy. and in whizh the
circuit courts might have had juris1ictior
except for this provisions OF section 90.
In such cases the said courts have exclu-
sive jurisdiction. unless there is such di-
versity of citizenship as permits recourse
to the circuit courts. II may be that d
trustee by virtue OF subdivision OBJ may
at his election resort to any State court as
a court of competent jurisdiction in any
Gaze for remedy, but as to this / am
not called upon to express an opinion.
! am. however, clearly of the opinion
that subdivision tb) does not exclude q
resort to this court in any proceeding by
the trustee arising within its territorial
jurisdiction.
Coming now to the question In Judgment
It is my opinion that the petit.ocins cred
itors In this case are entitled to the re-
lief prayed for by them, and accordingly
the respondent, Henry b. Davis, viii be
enjoined from proceeding further with the
rupt, under the general assignment hereto
fore made to him, and the United States
marshal will be appointed to take charge
Of the property assigned to the respondent
and hold the came until either the t't.on
in bankruptcy in this case istdisnissed, o.
the trustee hereafter to be appointed is
qualified