The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-05-20
JUDGE JONES RENDERS
 IMPORTANT DECISION
(continued from Page rive.)

CCondnued from Page Five)
 United states. .nd respected by ail lovers
 of hw and order. No one bows to the
 rule more profoundly than, the writer of
 this opinion. But the question is not one
 of comitv or concurrent Jurisdiction. It
 nussn .od os iss s.. % If the
 st.ses. to which stsss and q Fsderal courts courts
 our tarisurucsnes for M = = s stsse Ss court. 1n which. witch hsd soncsrrsnt iuri;Sicsion os the
 and first obtained jWisdiction to lose
 ton Sy cDerstioa of the supreme 'isx e of
 eral Court which enforces the transfer of
 the res into it's own custody. Our remov-
 al laws. are familiar instances of this
 loss of jurisdiction by one court after that
 the gain of tts jurisdiciion by another The sections of the act cited inevitably rive the District courts of the United
 minister the estate of an insoivent I M M ss against liens and attachments acquired
 against insolvente by legal proceedings
 at any time within four months prior to
 ons s amed H not Hi h.es RsnSe mSssrs '1 Ss .adtudged bankrupt; for. in the language of the statute. the property affected by
 the levy, Judgment. Attachment or other
 and released from the same. s sSi1sS and .'shsii
 pass to the trustee as part of the es-
 tate of the bankrupt. As to suits to ob-
 tain liens upon an insolvent's property four months of the filing, the only Jurisdiction which can remain in the at tachinx court. is to hold on to the suit and if discharge is not granted. or grant in personam. Ita jurisdiction over the rem is taken away by the adjudication. The failure to obtain q discharEe can not revest the State Court with Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy to administer. upaffected bx the denial of discharge to the bank
 rupt.
 notice by . party to the record by timely plea. ruthlessly disregards 1t and proceeds In violation of the law of the land to en- ter Judgment of condemnation, what, com
 Thrs s 1S ns to or
 that 1t would pay any attention to re- quest to surrender possession. and none
 in such q case why the request should
 On the happening of the contingencies
 mentioned in Subdivision F. the jurisdic-
 tion of the State Court is taken fs,m 1t
 as completely as when there has been
 a party entitled to removal" Tn such
 case, 1t has many times been held that
 the jurisdiction of the State Court "ab-
 solutelv ceased and that of the Circuit
 attached"--that the State Court was
 without further Jurisdiction" right
 full jurisdiction comes to an end" Gre
 shore vs. Ohio Railroad Company, 131 U.
 s.. D. 243 The Jurisdiction of the State Court over the Attached property In this case whatever 1t might have been, has
 ceased and determined. The levy is void.
 he Courts orders with reference to the
 1e .&- ,At1 original levy being void. the court hav- ing no further Jurisdiction cannot make
 any further order. It can not protect the
 oncer or party acting or claiming under passer as to the property. without shadow of legal claim to the property or to It's possession. whenever he refuses to deliver on demand of the rightful owner, therefore. to follow conclusively from the principles stated. that the Court of Bankruptcv in the cases of attachments mentioned in Clause F, not only has the Jurisdiction. but Is under duty to take the property from the possession of one who though originally holding for the State Court. has bv reason of it's loss of jurisdiction over the rem. become mere bailee for the true owner. whenever, on proper demand. such bailee refuses to sur render posse$sion. It Is entirely illogical to contend. in such a case. that the Court of Bankruptcy interferes. in any legal oCuSCs With tHc OcoSSSoiSh VI thS SoSatC Court.
 The collection and distribution of the assets of the bankrupt estate in a sense involves the administration of trust. The court to which the administration is confided has the inherent power. apart from the special jurisdiction conferred by the bankrupt law. if need be. on It's own motion. to punish mere intermeddlers by summary process. It can make no diff ference that the jurisdiction is invoked bv the trustee. the receiver or the bank rupt himself. so long as the person against whom the power of the court is invoked is a mere intermeddler. or one who claims to hold or take possession un- der a clai m which in law is purely col orable. Such proceedings are not "suits' in the ordinary meaning ta 70 of the & term. IT , nor in Subdivision B of Section 2. They come rather under Subdivision 15 of Sec ton 2. which empowers the court "to make such orders issue such process process. ana those specifically provided for. as may | be necessary for the enforcement or the | provisions of this act"
 Each case of this kind of course. must | depend upon it's own facts. If it be clear | that the property belonged to the bank | rupt. that 1t was attached in proceedings | against an insolvent within four months | of the filing of the petition and that the only claim of the person in actual pos session of the property is derived from these proceedings. the case is clearly within the principles enumerated Tn Nu- gents case: for the claimant has not | even colorable title. On the other hand, if in the particular case, there Is any fair room for doubt as to the fact of | insolvency. when the evidence IS present. ed.-and that is the only issue which can arise. since the intent with which the attachment is levied is entirely im- claim Is not merely color able" and the summary jurisdiction can not be further pursued.
 In re Seabold. 105 Fed. Rep.. p. 9l0, the Circuit Court of Appeals in this Circuit held. where an action was begun in State Court. prosecuted to judgment and execution issued and the property | subjected to the pledge by judgment. | seized and advertised for sale before the | institution of proceedings in voluntary | the State Court having pos session of the property and the jurlsdic- ton of the parties the Court of Bank -uptcv had no authority to stay the pro- ,eedings Most clearly that decision was right. Tho action asked at the hands of he Court of Bankruptcy in that case was an attempt to annul lien preserved ,v the bankrupt law. lien of which the Supreme Court of the United States had said in another case, "the lessor's lien on the goods of the tenant on the premises s one of the strongest and most favored under the law of Louisiana"
 Tn re Kinney, 105 Fed. Rep, D. 69I the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit held. that where within four months before the filing of the petition n bankruptcy against an insolvent tudg- nent debtor execution had been issued md levied upon his personal property md a sale made. the proceeds of such
 .AA~ h anda af |