St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1905-04-19
PROF. FAIRBANKS WINS CASE.
A Decision in the Supreme Court Of the
United States in "a IT. J 0hnsbury
Bankruptcy Case.


1t is rarely that St. Johnsbury parties
figure in a case in the United States
supreme court, but our readers may
recall that some months ago Frank D.
Thompson, as trustee, appealed the case
of Herbert E. Moore VS.. Henry Fair
banks to the highest court in the land to
have them review the judgment of the
Vermont supreme court. The plaintiff
was Represented in the United States
court by E. H. Deavitt of Montpelier
and Porter and Thompson, and the
defendants by G. A. Prouty of Washing
ton, Harry Blodgett and the late Jona-
than Ross. The facts in the case were
these:
Herbert E. Moore on the 3Oth day of
June, 1900, filed his voluntary petition
in bankruptcy in the United States
district court for the district of Vermont,
and Moore was by said court duly ad.
Judged bankrupt, and on the 18th day
of September, 1900, Frank D. Thompson
was appointed trustee of Moore's estate
in bankruptcy.
Mr.. Fairbanks had assisted Moore in
the purchase OF livery stock at st.
Johnsbury, signed notes with him at
banks, and to secure Mr.. Fairbanks
therefor, Moore on the 18th day of April,
1891, gave a chattel mortgage on the
livery property. which mortgage con.
tanned the following provision, "also all
horses and livery property that | may
purchase ia my business or acquire by
exchange"
On the 7th day Of May, 1900, John
Ryan placed an attachment on the entire
Moore livery stock. Mr. Fairbanks on
the 10th day of May, 1900 with the
consent OF Moore took possession OF all
the livery property at the Moore livery
stable under his mortgage, the condition
of which had been broken, and on the
18th day Of June, 1900, caused it to be
sold at sheriff's sale upon the mortgage;
the property, so sold, brought 1922 08,
which was paid over to Mr.. Fairbanks,
it being much less than the sum his. due,
and for which he was held at banks for
Moore. At the time Of the sale, all of
the property sold, except two horses,
had been acquired by Moore, by sales,
purchases, and exchange, subsequent to
the execution of the mortgage.
Mr.. Thompson, alter his appointment
as trustee, brought suit in the Vermont
court, against Mr.. Fairbanks claiming
to recover the amount for which the
property sold, $922.09; the case was re.
ferred to Hon. George M. Powers, who
found the facts, and the cause was after.
wards passed to the supreme court Of
Vermont, and in an opinion by Judge
Watson, the court held, that the chattel
mortgage was valid, and that under it
Mr.. Fairbanks could hold the after
acquired property, and that the taking
possession OF the after-acquired property
and sale of same under the circumstances
, was not an unlawful preference, which
could be set asideby the bankruptcy pro
ceedings, and so rendered judgment fol
the defendant Fairbanks.
Mr.. Thompson then sued out writ 0
= error from the supreme court of tn,
e United States to review the judgement o
t the supreme court of Vermont, and tn
e case was submitted on the 9th day O
Y January, 1905, to the supreme court O
v the United States for decision.
t. In an opinion by Mr.. Justice Peckham
O it is adjudged; 1. Whether and to VIVA
IS extent chattel mortgage covering after
Al acquired property is valid is a loca
t. question on which the decisions of til
state courts will be followed by the fede
raj supreme courtin determining whethe
the taking possession of the mortage
chattels after condition broken amount
ed to preference voidable by the NOR
gagor's trustee in bankruptcy.
2. The decision of state court as t
whether a conveyance by bankrur
was made with intent to defraud cred
tors does not present federal questio
al ! which can be considered by the teder