Crawford v. Halsey

Supreme Court

Crawford v. Halsey

124 U.S. 648, 8 S. Ct. 641, 31 L. Ed. 572, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1903

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 20, 1888

Docket155

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 U.S. 648 (Crawford v. Halsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crawford v. Halsey, 124 U.S. 648, 8 S. Ct. 641, 31 L. Ed. 572, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1903 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

*651 Me.- Chief Justice Waite,

after stating the ease, delivered the opinion of the court.

Without undertaking to determiñe whether the court could properly entertain the motion for a new .trial and file an additional finding of facts after the end of the term at which the judgment was entered, we decide that there is no error m the record as it now-stands. The finding of the award of the amicable compounders, which appears both in the judgment as originally entered and in that finally recorded, must be taken as part of the findings of facts in the. case; and the ruling of the court upon the right of Kobert C. Crawford to contest the validity of the assignments must be taken in connection with the motion for a new trial which confined the objection to the assignment of April 7, 1874. As, the court has found that there was an assignment to Parker as early as December 3, 1873, to which Bobert C. Crawford as one of the partners was a party, and which was not within the prohibitions of the bankrupt law, it was clearly right to hold that he was not permitted to show that-it was fraudulent as against his creditors. As to the assignment of April 7, which was within two months of the date of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, the case might have been different. But as an assignment had been made before which was valid both as against the assignees and Crawford himself, it was a matter of no importance that the one made afterwards was void under the bankrupt law. The rights of Crawford as purchaser of- the claim were only those of the assignees in bankruptcy.

There can be no question here as to the fact of the assignment in December. That is settled by the finding of the court below, to the effect that “the claim on which the suit is brought ” was assigned. This disposes of all that is said in the brief of counsel as to the fact that the coffee, out of which the claim arose, had not been sold at the date of that assignment. As the assignment was made more than two months before the bankruptcy proceedings, it was not necessary that the assignees should be parties to the submission to arbitration. The title to the claim at the time of the bankruptcy was in *652 Parker, and not in the bankrupts. Therefore nothing passed to the assignees, and there was nothing for them to submit.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*651 Me.- Chief Justice Waite,

after stating the ease, delivered the opinion of the court.

Without undertaking to determiñe whether the court could properly entertain the motion for a new .trial and file an additional finding of facts after the end of the term at which the judgment was entered, we decide that there is no error m the record as it now-stands. The finding of the award of the amicable compounders, which appears both in the judgment as originally entered and in that finally recorded, must be taken as part of the findings of facts in the. case; and the ruling of the court upon the right of Kobert C. Crawford to contest the validity of the assignments must be taken in connection with the motion for a new trial which confined the objection to the assignment of April 7, 1874. As, the court has found that there was an assignment to Parker as early as December 3, 1873, to which Bobert C. Crawford as one of the partners was a party, and which was not within the prohibitions of the bankrupt law, it was clearly right to hold that he was not permitted to show that-it was fraudulent as against his creditors. As to the assignment of April 7, which was within two months of the date of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, the case might have been different. But as an assignment had been made before which was valid both as against the assignees and Crawford himself, it was a matter of no importance that the one made afterwards was void under the bankrupt law. The rights of Crawford as purchaser of- the claim were only those of the assignees in bankruptcy.

There can be no question here as to the fact of the assignment in December. That is settled by the finding of the court below, to the effect that “the claim on which the suit is brought ” was assigned. This disposes of all that is said in the brief of counsel as to the fact that the coffee, out of which the claim arose, had not been sold at the date of that assignment. As the assignment was made more than two months before the bankruptcy proceedings, it was not necessary that the assignees should be parties to the submission to arbitration. The title to the claim at the time of the bankruptcy was in *652 Parker, and not in the bankrupts. Therefore nothing passed to the assignees, and there was nothing for them to submit.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 U.S. 648, 8 S. Ct. 641, 31 L. Ed. 572, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-halsey-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack