The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-05-20

Nusen.: dscidsd on the soth day of Ian
 N was a matter of doubt among the leral profession whether declston tnBern- sss5 @ ss ss'f S i sur ss sss
 to the Jurisdiction. sNurents case. fienn up that. The Supreme Court .of tne United States in that case decided tnas Nugent. the asent of the Dankrupt e Snc risht before the adiudication. could se subjected to the summary 1ur1ediction though he protested aeainst 1t. NuGenC case also shsds light upon other Ques- The District Court committed Nugent for contempt; for not paying over money which belonged to the bankrupt: The Cir- cult Court of Appeals. i0s Fed. Rap, D. Court. The Court of Appeals rsgarded dictipn of the District Court wAs con- ccrned. ft held. that 'eyen If he. were rsssrded q shs assnt Of sns ssnksaDs ,sss remedies, and iz | proper cours. t held on the authority Of Aawarden's case. that the District Court was without tu- risdiction to impriscn Nuxsnt for disobe- reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeafs. and affirmed that of the Dis- trict Court. The Supreme Court said the respondent denied turtsdiction on the ground that he did not receive the money. or any part of 1t. after the petition in bankruptcy was filed:' though The after wards sousht to aFepd his response 70 the rule by assertingVhat whatever money belcnsinE to the baAkrupt came into ~. nis was held adverseiv to the bankrupt. 1. The optnion further says that the real question involved was whether the oroer was a lawful order. It was to be de- the sa facts found n that that sEs s money belonged to the bankrupt's estate and was then In NuGent's Dossession as the bankrvpts 2 agent. he assertinR no adverse claim. Ito this. the Court said: But suppose that respondent had asserted that he had the right to possession by reason or q claim adverse to the bankrupt, the bank sIDSy SstS., eour a esa s1s for sSc cs tually existed at the time of the nhns of the nstition." In another piacs fns
 Does the mere refusal by the bankrupt or his assnt. 90 to deliver up. obliee the trustee to resort to a plenary suit n. ea.s e.so,r m.y y0s Ses fl 1T is @ De %. the srsn. q jurisdiction to cause the assets of mine controversies relating thereto would be seriously impaired. and in many re- spects rendered practically inenecient. The bankruptcv court would be helpless. indeed. If the bare refusal to turn turn oyer yer trustee to an action 10 recover as Tor an indebtedness. or conversion. or to pro ceedings in chancery. at the FISK oI tne acccmpaniments oi delay eompncat'pn snpaSsd ps the simpler methods of the bankrupt law. It Is as true of the present law as it was of that of iS67 that the filing of the petition is caveat to all the world ton Blank vs. sherman, 1M U. B., p. 407,) and on adjudication title 10 the property became vested in the trustee ,section 70, q O with actual or custody of the bankrupt court"
 Tn shermans case quoted approvingly above, the Supreme Court said: The bankruut became. as 1t were. TOT many M who dealt with his property in the in- terval between the filing of the petition and the final adtudication did 50 at their peril, They could limit neither the pow. CT of the court nor r,.aesion .ns ennc' 'n oth. % erwise the efficacy of the act depended not upon it's own language and meaning, but was only what others outside or the proceedings might chose to permit 1t to be-"
 Certainly the Supreme Court of the United States in its last decision on the subject. did not deem that decision tc tc conflict in any way with the case oL Bardes against the Bank. and the other cases noted, which deny to the Court ot Rankruptov jurisdiction over suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy to set aside fraudulent transfers Of money or prorerty made by the bankrupt to tiifra parties. before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy. It unques- fionablv intended that those decisions shovld stand. But Nugent's. case inevit. ably withdraws from the influence ot Bardes case summary. as distinguished from plenary, proceedings against thiro person. who without color or right or appearance of right. retains property ot the District Court. though he is not a party to the suit. and does not submit to the Jurisdiction. It also. results irreslst- iblv that 1t qualities or departs from any expression to the contrary, which mas he found in Morgan vs. ThoPnhill. Smith vs Mason. Marshall vs. Knox and Eyster vs. Gan. which are all made the subject was under review in Nugents case.
 In Bardes' case. ?. 53i. MT. Justice Cur tis is quoted as saying or two former eases that they are "an illustration of the rule that any opinion given here or elsewhere. cannot be relied on as binding pression." So the ease Of Bardes ana those following it. are not to be construed as holding in any wise that the mere assertion of an adverse claim would oust the summary Jurisdiction of court of bankruptcv to ascertain. to use the lam RuaEe in Nugent's case. whether any basis for such actually existed at the time of the hhnR of the netition." or the further holding In NuRents case that the court would he bound fo enter upon that innuirv" It is apparent from reading the opinion in Nugents case, that the only