Manual of the U.S. Bankruptcy Act, 1867

of 500
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 43 | Pages: 500

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Description
Library Cornell university KF 15111867 Manual of theaS-Bang^^^^ Cornell University The Moak Law Library Collection PURCHASED FOR The School of Law of IN Cornell University 14, And Presented February nenoRY of THE SCHOOL 1893 JUDGE DOUGLASS BOARDMAN FIR3T DEAN OF By A. M. his Wife and Daughter D. BOARDMAN and BLLBN WILLIAMS BANKKUPTCY, iSankruptcg. 8. I. I., II. II. Jurisdiction in bankruptcy General principles. Jurifdidtion in bankruptcy. Extent of the jurisdiction in
Tags
Transcript
  Cornelluniversity Library KF 15111867 Manual of theaS-Bang^^^^ Cornell University Law Library The Moak Collection PURCHASED FOR The School of Law of Cornell University And Presented February 14, 1893 IN nenoRY of JUDGE DOUGLASS BOARDMAN FIR3T DEAN OF THE SCHOOL By his Wife and Daughter A. M. BOARDMAN and BLLBN D. WILLIAMS  BANKKUPTCY, I., II. iSankruptcg. I kiupfe I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.VIII. IX. X. XI. 5gi. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. General principles. Jurifdidtion in bankruptcy. What is an aft ofbankruptcy. Effeft of an aft ofbankruptcy. Of the petition.(a) Yoliiniary banhi'upicy. (h) Involuntaryhankruplcy. EfFeft of the inftitution of proceedings. CommiHioners in bankruptcy.Evidence. Praftice in bankruptcy. Of thedecree. Of the difcharge. EfFeft of the difcharge. What property vefts in the aflignee. Wliat may be allowed toa difcharged bankrupt. Rights and liabilities of affignees. Suits by and againft affignees. Probate of debts. Diftribution. Colls. 1. General principles. 1. The English rule that an assignee in bank- ruptcy is vested with the personal property of the bankrupt in a foreign country, and which i^ecognises the title of a foreign assignee to pro- perty in thatcountry, doesnot prevail in the United States. Booth v.Clarlc, 17 H. 322. 2. The preference of the United States in cases of bankruptcyand insolvency, extends to all its debtors, tfnited States v. Fisher, 2 Cr. 358. 3. The United Statesare entitled to a prefer- ence, though the debt was contracted in a foreigncountry, and the government proved the same under the commission, and voted for an assignee. Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cr. 289. 4. The bankrupt law ofa foreign country cannot operate a legal transferof property here.Ibid. 5. A discharge under a foreign bankrupt law, is no bar to an action on a contract made in this country. McMillan v. McNeill, 4 Wh. 209. 6. If the bankrupt himself be one of the as- signees of the estate, he may discharge a debtor thereto, on the receipt ofnegotiablepaper. Bandon v. Tohy, 11 H. 493. 7. If thecharacter of a claim in favorof a bankrupt be so indistinctly stated inhis schedule as to give no information of its value, and the bankrupt himself, in the name of athird person, purchase from theassignee at a public sale, all his effects, for a nominal sum, this is a fraud on the bankrupt law, and void. Clark v. Clark, 17 H. 315. See Conflict op Laws, VI.CoNsiiT|;Tio:.AL.LAy,^^ja;^ II. Jurisdiction in bankruptcy 8. Extent of the jurisdiction in bankrupt] under the act of 1800. Sands' Case, 1 U.' Law J. 15. Lucas v. Morris, 1 Pa. 396. MoiM '. Estate, Crabbe 70. ã 9. The district courts couldnot remove ti assignees, or compel them to account. LuMk^ } Morris, 1 Pa. 396. See 1 U. S. Law J. 3llpi 10. Such jurisdiction was, however, vestea J the circuit court.Ibid. .,5, 11. The district courts had power to sui sede a commission of bankruptcy after the rej of the act. Morris' Estate, Crabbe 70. 12. In all casesarising under the bankt law of 1841, the circuit and district courts 1 concurrent jurisdiction. McLean v. La/ay, Bank, 3 McL. 185. s. c. 13 H. 151. 13. The circuit court had jurisdiction ofcasesin which a suit was brought by or agaffl theassigneeof abankrupt. Ibid. 14. The district and circuit courts wer^ia sessed of the full jurisdiction of courts of e^i^^ over all subject-matters arisinginbankrup||0' Ex parte Foster, 2 St. 131. Mitchell v. Ori^ Works Milling and Manufacturing Co., Ibf 648. Ex parte Martin, 5 Law Rep. 158. 15. The circuit court exercised jurisdicti(*j| cases of alleged fraud, over distinct intej and parties, to adjust liens and make distrjtt' tion. McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 McL. 5ffi| 16. The circuit court had no jurisdiction oil bill, at the suit of a creditor who had proved i|' j debt, to set aside the discharge, on the grouii' of fraud ; the district court alone was compel^ to grant relief. Commercial Bank of Manch^' ' V. Buckner, 20 H. 108. E ] 17. The circuit court had jurisdiction of a s'-, j by an assignee in bankruptcy on a note in fa^|j of the bankrupt. Pritchard y. Chandl^^U Curt.488. ^ 18. The district court had jurisdiction of'tk^ action by an assignee in bankruptcy to recQ abalance due the bankrupt as factor. Keldj Smith, 1 Bl. C. C. 290. 19. In bankruptcy the jurisdiction depenl on the subject-matter, not upon the pa Ibid. 20. In what manner a question must be i fledto the circuitcourt, in order to confer j^ diction on it. Ex parte Marsh, 6 Law Rep.'6'^' 21. The circuit court had no authority to efj tertain questions in bankruptcy, adjourned fro^ the district court, unless they were distino raised. Ex parte Grant, 5 Law Rep. 303. 22. The district judge couldnot sit onl question adjourned into the circuit court. Ni son V. Carland, 1 H. 265. In reCastleinan, Ibic 281. Collins v. Blyth, Ibid. 282. 23. No appeal lay from the decision of tH circuit court; and it was conclusive upon th district judge. Ibid. s. p. Ex parte Christ 3 II. 292. Crawford v. Poi7its, 13 H. 11. #; 'a -ieeiver Jasb||n jlBiiKty',  BANKKUPTCY, II., III. ^editor's bill, and the debtor is subsequently iclared a bankrupt, an application for the deli- jry ofthe estate, by the receiver to theassignee lankruptcy, should be made to the court of hancery. Ex parte Waddell, 1 N. Y. Leg. )bs. 53. !5. The district courts had power to determine validity ofa mortgage, alleged to exist on property ofthe bankrupt. Ex parte Clirishj, fl. 292. Nugent v. Boyd, Ibid. 426. !6. The courts hadpower to decree the sale H8P the mortgaged property of abankrupt, dis-flisarged of the mortgage ; and to marshal thel^oceeds according to the priorities of the par- 3 in interest. Houston v. City Bank of New 'leans, 6 H. 486. 27. The lieu ofa judgment-creditor, with ^tice, was divested by such sale ; and he was Bund by thedecree of distribution. Fowler v. Wart, 13 H. 373. .8. The district courts had no power to decree it a lien acquired by the service of an attaoh- ;gnt on mesne process, out of a state court, was iivalid. Peclc v. Jenness, 7 H. 612. Colby v. eddeti. Ibid. 626. ,29. The federal courts, under the bankrupt w had power to grant injunctions without Yvioe. Ex parteSmith, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 291. jx parte Carlton, Ibid. 292. s. c. 5 Law Hep. RSO. What was such residence as conferred *&isdiction on the district court, on the petition (f_^a bankrupt. Ex parte Kinsman, 1 N. Y. |eg. Obs. 309. 31. Proceedings in bankruptcy could be insti- led against a member of a firm, either in the j^trict where he resided, or where the partner- Viip was established. Ex parte Hall, 5 Law Rep. 269. 32. The court first acquiring jurisdiction re- tained it over all the partners, and all their Woperty joint and several. Ibid. i 33. The jurisdiction, under the bankrupt law, vas not confined to oasessrcinally brought in Ihe court from which relief was sought. Ex parte Martin, 5 Law Rep. 158. ^ 54. What was such a trading or retailing of fciefchandise as would support an adversary ap- plication for a decree in bankruptcy. Ex parte Eeles, 5 Law Rep, 273. s. c. 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. S4. Ex 2}arte Hoyt, Ibid.132. Baldwin v. Siosseau., Ibid. 390. Hall v. Coolq/, 3 N.Y. Leg.Obs. 282. Wakeman v. Hmjt, 5 Law Rep. 309. . 85. Any pnrHon engaged in business requiring Hie purchase of artich^M to be sold nsain, either in the same, or in an improved shape, used the trade of mcrchandi.'<e, within the meaning of the bankrupt law. Wakeman v. Hoyt, 5 Law Rep. 309. 36. A livery-stable keeper was not liable to be proccfidod against as a trader under the bank- rupt law. Hall V. Coolly, 3 N. Y. Log. Obs. 282. .31iJLti'iider who had withdrawn from busi- ness might be proceeded against in inviium, on debtscontractedwhilst he was intrade. Everett V. Derby, 5 Law Rep. 225. 38. By the filing of a petition for the benefit of the bankrupt law, the court acquired jurisdic- tion over the property of the bankrupt. Ex parte Harris, 3 N. Y.Leg. Obs. 152. 39. And might order a sale, with his consent, before decree. Ex parte Vila, 5 Law Rep. 17. 40. A debt payable infuturo would support a decree. Ex parte King, 1 N. Y.Leg. Obs. 276. 41. A debt of a petitioning-creditor, notyet due, would support an adverse decree. Ex parte Tower, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 8. s. c. 5 Law Rep. 214. 42. A debt contracted prior to the passage of the act, was within its operation, and would sup-port an adverse decree. Ex parte Hull, 1 N. Y.Leg. Obs. 1. 43. The word insolvency in the act, as applied to voluntary applications, meant inability to meet engagements. Ibid. 44. But as applied to compulsory proceedings it meant the bankruptcy of the debtor as desig- nated by the act. Ibid. Ex parte Johnson, Ibid.166.45. Effect of the passage ofthe bankrupt law upon cases pending under the state insolvent laws. Ex parte Holmes, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 211. s. c. 5 Law Rep. 360. Ex parte Eames, 2 St. 322. 46. If the petitioning-creditor's debt appeared to be less than $500,the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Culver v. Calender, 5 Law Rep. 125. III. What is an act of bankruptcy. 47. The execution of a deedon the 30th May 1800, whichwould have amounted to an act of bankruptcy after the 1st June LSOO, when the bankrupt law went into operation, didnot have such effect, by reason of its being acknowledged and recorded on the 14th June following. Wood V. Owings, 1 Or. 239. 48. The performance of certain formalities,requisite to complete an imperfectly executed transfer, is not an act of bankruptcy. Ex parte Potts, Crabbe 469. 49. What is such a fraudulentassignment, as amounts to an act of bankruptcy. Ex parte Tower, 1 N.Y. Leg.Obs. 8. s. c. 5 Law Rep. 214. 1 Penn. L. J. 209. Jones v. Sleeper, 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs. ]:U. Ex jiarte I'liila. Crabbe 469. Ex parte Shoiisc, Ibid. 482. Van Kleech v. Thnrha-, 1 Pcnn. L. J. 402. 50. An assignment byan insolvent firm, with preferences, is an act of bankruptcy. Ex parte Galhrailh, 1 N.Y. Log. Obs. 5, n. Ex parte Hoyt, Ibid. 132. B(ddwin v. Bosscau, Ibid. 39' Ex parte Brenanan, Crabbe 456. Ex parte Toiver, I Pcnn. L. J. 209. s. c. 5 Law Rep. 214. Wnkeman v. Hoyt, Ibid. 310. 51. A conveyance, by a trader, of the whole of his propstt^Js an act of bankruptcy, though
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x