Case Name: SHEARS against SOLHINGER
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1870-12
Citations: 10 Abb. Pr. 287
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHEARS against SOLHINGER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's Practice Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
SHEARS against SOLHINGER.
Supreme Court, First District;
Special Term, December, 1870.
Bankrupt Act. — State Insolvent Laws.—DisCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT.
A discharge in insolvency, applied for and obtained in conformity ■with a State law, subsequently to the passage of the United States bankrupt law (Act of Congress, March 2, 1867), is inoperative.
The United States law is paramount and exclusive, and suspends the operation of the insolvent laws of this State, over all the cases within its purview.
But it does not suspend those laws which confer upon the State courts the right to discharge the person from imprisonment.
Motion for a perpetual stay
The plaintiff, William Shears, recovered judgment against the defendant, Julius G. Solhinger, from which judgment an appeal was taken to the court at general term.
During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant obtained from one of the justices of the superior court of the city of New York, a discharge under the New York insolvent law, known as the two-third act (3 Rev. Stat., 5 ed., 91), whereby he was discharged from all Ms debts.
The proceedings for the discharge were commenced since the UMted States bankrupt act went into operation.
The appeal was not brought on for argument until seven months after the discharge was obtained, and the defendant moved for a perpetual stay upon the judgment.
H. Fox, for the motion,
Cited 4 Wheat., 122 ; 12 Id., 213; 6 Pet., 348, 635 ; 4 Am. Law J., 333; 14 Law Rep., 451.
F. IF. Taft, opposed.

Opinion:
Brady, J.
The power conferred tapón Congress, by the Constitution, to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States, having been exercised by the enactment of a law for that purpose, on March 2, 1867, that law became paramount and exclusive, and suspended the operation of the insolvent laws of this State, over all cases within its purview (Griswold v. Pratt, 9 Metc., 16 ; Commonwealth v. O'Hara, 6 Int. Rev. Reg., 125; Van Nostrand v. Barr, 2 Bankr. Reg., 154; Martin v. Berry, Id., 188; Exp. Eames, 2 Story, 322; Bump's L. & Pr. of Bankr., 3 ed., 242, and cases cited. See, also, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat., 122 ; and Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Id., 213).
The converse of this proposition might lead to conflicts between the State and Federal authorities, in the, administration of their powers over the same subject matter, in reference to which both had the right to legislate. The State law yields,, therefore. It is not intended herein to decl re that the bankrupt act suspends the laws of this State thereto relating, which confer upon our courts the right to discharge the person from imprisonment. The authority still continues.
This is all that I deem it necessary to state in disposing of the question presented on this motion. The subject is attractive, and would doubtless justify an elaborate review; but the cases referred to discuss and dispose of it fully and satisfactorily. The discharge obtained by the defendant is, for these reasons, inoperative. It was applied for and granted subsequently to the act of Congress, and relates to matters within the purview of such act.
Ordered accordingly.