Court Opinion

ID: 8637159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:47:08.952397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:58.253396
License: Public Domain

This motion, after extended argument, was granted by
HUGHES, District Judge,
as to the sales of the Meadow ville and the Walter Smith land, on the ground that it was not shown that any credits claimed to be not allowed, even If allowable, could affect the amounts due upon these two estates, both incumbered beyond their value by undisputed liens. But the restraining order was continued upon the other tracts of land belonging to the bankrupt. The commissioners of the state court thereupon readvertised the two named estates for sale. Against this order of the district court an appeal was taken to the supervisory power of the circuit court, and after elaborate argument again of the case before the circuit court, that court affirmed the decree of the district court. To this decree of affirmation by the circuit court no appeal has been or can be taken to the supreme court of the United States. But the assignees of the bankrupt went before the judge of the circuit court of Culpeper county with a bill of injunction setting out an ex parte statement of facts, and suppressing the fact that the cause had been twice heard and decided in the district and circuit courts of the United States, and asking of this state court an injunction against the sale about to be made by the commissioners of the circuit court of Spottsylvania. Injunctions under the practice in the state courts are allowed on ex parte motion without notice to the adverse party; and so, on this prayer for an injunction, the Culpeper circuit judge awarded an injunction against the order of the Spottsylvania circuit judge. This order having been obtained by assignees in bankruptcy, who are officers of the United States court and under its control, upon a sworn statement, suppressing the fact that the cause had been twice heard and decided against the prayer of their petition, the bankrupt court made an order on April 10th, 1874, requiring these assignees at once to dismiss their bill of injunction in the state court, and to appear in Richmond on the 5th of May, 1874, to show cause why they should not be removed as assignees and why they should not be attached for contempt. On the return day of the order to show, cause, the assignees purged themselves of contempt; but THE COURT nevertheless removed them from office, and appointed another assignee of this bankrupt’s estate.