Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-02-11
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which are Of Interest to
Our Readers.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN,
LEA BROTHERS & co v. GEO. NJ
WEST CO.
U. S. District Court. Eastern District
of Virginia.
January 10, 1899.

BANKRUPT LAVA GENERAL
ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT
OF CREDITORS IS AN ACT OF
BANKRUPTCY, WHETHER GRANT
OR IS SOLVENT OR INSOLvENT-
FEDERAL COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTER
ING THE BANKRUPT LAW, AND
WILL ENJOIN PARTIES FROM
PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT
WHICH HAS UNDERTAKEN TO
CARRY OUT THE ASSIGNMENT,
AND HAS APPOINTED a RE-
CEIVER.
The George NJ. West Company, a
joint stock company, engaged i'll mer-
camille pursuits. executed Il deed of as
signment to a trustee. conveying all its
assets for the benefit of its creditors.
Ihis deed was admitted to record De-
cemDer 18th, at o'clock a. M
On the same day one of the creditors
secured HE'D Il bill III the Law anc
EQUITY Court of Richmond. asking it
10 appoint a receiver of the trust pro-
perry and administer the trust.
ny consent decree the trustee in the
ueco was made receiver and directed to
take possession OF the assets of the COM
pany.
al o'clock p m on the same day
the pialntlifs filed a petition in the L..
o. Dlstrict Court, asking that court ia
ad)udge the company bankrupt and
luiiiiiis,er the assets in accordance
win the bankrupt law. The ground
SCI Iorth III the petition being that the
coHipany was insolvent and had COM
initted an act of bankruptcy by making
the deed of assignment.
Inc defendant filed its answer. al-
ieSihS mat it was solvent, and asking
lnal 1he petition be itr--,1r-
ttioners then moved the court TO re-
Ject this answer, adjudge the companv
bankrupt. and enjoin proceedings in
the State Court.
me Court, Waddill, District Judge.
inter ALA, SAYS:
me pleadings In this case present two
questions Tor the consideration of the
court ''
,o riiiS, Is, general assignment
lot Tue Deneit of creditors constitutes
an act OF bankruptcy; and second. if an
ucl OF bankruptcy, what effect the ac-
non OIL the state court appointing a re-
oelNer 10 administer the trust under the
uecu Oh assignment should have in the
administration of the trust estate: that
Is TO say. whether the State or bankrunt
court should. after the adjudica ton of
pankruptcy, administer the trust es-
.aste, Inc present bankrupt law, sec
non - specifics five acts of bankruptcy
(herc the judge quotes the section in
Guiding the fourth act of bankruntnv
whlch Is as follows: 20, made n
general assignment for the benefit of
his creditors" Vi
under the law itself it Is quite clear
.nat general assignment of ones es-
tate and effects TO trustees constitutes
an act of bankruptcy. and the currnnf
or authority both English and Ameri-
can. is To the same effect.
Soin'he now TO the considerat ton Of
WHAT action should be taken by this
cpurt While every reasonable effort
should be eXerted to avoid even an an
parent conflict of Jurisdiction hatwoar
o,a'e ana Federal courts. this case is
apparently free from dlfIicuIly no it
WI not be seriously maintained that
me act or bankruptcy itself can he
MADE the basis of dispossessing the
bankrupt court of It's jurisdiction Tho
constitution of the United States an
ihorizcs Congress in Its wisdom to enact
bankruptcy legislation. and when such
action Is taken IL is the supreme law
or the land on the subject.
ohuer me recent act the District
courts of the United States alone are
made courts Of bankruptcy within The
S,ntes, ana are vested with such juris-
u'ctinh Mt law and I'm equity rs will
enaoIe mem TO exercise original juris-
uiction I'm bankruptcy PROCEEDINGS
MY conclusion Is that the assignment
constitutes an act OF bankruptcv. and
mat the parties should be enioinad
lEoln-INEIher-prcla !! AI.t--ei+r-r-
court '''N "'"'c
AS an appeal Is desired the presen.
auministra ton of the estate in the state
H"uIt VIII not be interrupted pending
the appeal. which can be quickly taken
and disposed Of
lawson u Seaton. for petitioners.
Henry & Williams. for defendant