Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1922-06-14
ASKS REVIEW BY
SUPREME Court
Pussy and Jones Company
Takes Case TO Highest
Tribunal
GROWS OUT OF
RECEIVERSHIP SUIT

Counsel for the Pusey and Jones
Company OF this city. has filed
petition for a writ OF certiorari TO
! the Supreme Court OF the United
! States against Hans Karlup Hansen
and others. stockholders OF the cor
poration. The petitioner in the writ.
IL Is said, will ask the Supreme
| Court to review the case. which IS
an outgrowth Of the receivership
suit.
William @. Mahafy and John p.
Nields. OF this city. and William II.
Button. OF New York. are attorneys
for the respondent and James II.
Hughes. United States district attor-
ney. represents the United States
Shipping Board Emergency Fleet
Corporation. which was given leave
10 intervene as a party TO the re-
ceivership but has not served any
complaint and was not named as a
respondent Lindley NJ. Garrison. OF
/ New York. IS attorney for the Pussy
and Jones Company. The case will
come up at the October term % the
Supreme Court.
The respondent. Mr.. Hansen, fied
a bill on June 8. 1921. in the United
States District Court here asking for
the appointment OF receiver for
the Pussy and Jones Company and
the court named Willard Salisbury
and Charles B. Evans as receivers.
The company during that month filed
its answer in which II denied It's in
solvency and alleged that Il had a
surplus OF several million dollars.
The order confirming the naming
OF the receivers was made on Au-
gust /. 1921, and an appeal was
taken in March OF this year. The
Circuit Court OF Appeals affirmed
the decree OF the District Court.
The petition to be presented TO
the Supreme Court sets forth. as
the fundamental error. and that the
Circuit Court OF Appeals and the
District Court ruled that this action.
under the Delaware statute. might
be maintained in equity in the Dis
trict Court of the United States and
relief therein administered. on the
application Of an unsecured. simple
contract creditor. such as # held
the complainant 10 be. although no
other relief whatever with regard 10
compiainant's rights as a creditor
was prayed for: and although the
complainant made no claim even TO
be more than a simple contract
creditor Of the petitioner and ad-
mitted not having obtained any
Judgment upon his alleged claim:
and although the answer Of the
defendant petitioner here) denied
the complainant respondent here)
was creditor at all. raising the very
live Issue above mentioned.
1T is the contention OF your pc
titioner that a simple contract cred
/ itor under such circumstances, where
/ his allegations of being a creditor
are denied by the defendant. cannot,
notwithstanding the statute OF Della
ware. maintain a suit in the District
Court OF the United States on the
equity side, either TO obtain re-
ceiver of the assets OF the defendant
without other equitable relief being
prayed for with respect TO his al
legged claim-if that Is what the Del
aware statute is construed TO con-
template-or TO obtain a seizure OF
the property OF his debtor and the
administration OF such property by
a receiver-lf that Is held TO be the
proper construction Of the Delaware
statute.
THE Jurisdiction OF the United
States Courts in Equity does not
extend to the appointment Of re-
ceivers in cases where no equitable
relief is prayed. or II d is more
proper to say so. where no other
equitable relief is prayed. The !
Jurisdiction Of the United States |
Courts in Equity does not extend to !
the appointment OF receivers for /
the administration Of the assets Of
a corporation at the instance OF a |
simple contract creditor, and |
jurisdiction for this purpose can
not be derived by such courts from |
a State statute"