Dudley v. Easton

104 U.S. 99, 26 L. Ed. 668, 14 Otto 99, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1974
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 14, 1881
Docket5
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 104 U.S. 99 (Dudley v. Easton) 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
Dudley v. Easton, 104 U.S. 99, 26 L. Ed. 668, 14 Otto 99, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1974 (1881).

Opinion

Mr. Chiee Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing on, demurrer a bill filed by Dudley, the assignee in bankruptcy of William P. Bush. The case stated in the last amended bill is substantially as follows: —

On the 10th of October, 1873, Easton and Stillwell severally *100 sued Bush in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Missouri, — Easton on a note for $3,000, and Stillwell on one for $5,000; In due course of proceeding, judgments by default could be-taken in each of the suits on the 30th of October. Bush was at the time laboring under great financial embarrass- . ment, although, as he thought, actually possessed of lands and other property greatly in excess of his debts. On the 24th of October, after service of process .upon him in the suits, he met a portion of his creditors, including Easton and Stillwell, and •made known to them his embarrassed condition, and the pendency of the suits. He also stated that Easton and Stillwell would, by obtaining judgments, secure an advantage over his other creditors, and he was desirous that all should share equally in his property. He thereupon proposed that all the creditors present should accept in satisfaction of their respective debts his notes, payable in equal instalments in one, two, three, and four years from date, Avith interest at the rate of ten per cent, secured by a mortgage executed by himself and wife, to a trustee to be selected by the parties, on all his real estate, and that Easton and Stillwell should dismiss their suits and not take judgment against him. It is then averred that all the creditors present, including Easton and Stillwell, agreed with each other and with him to accept the notes and secue rity as proposed, and extend the time, and that he agreed to give the notes and make the mortgage. As part of the agreement thus entered into,-Easton and Stillwell were to dismiss their suits.

Relying on this agreement, Bush set about the preparation of his notes and mortgage, and paid no attention to the suits. He did not appear in court, or make any defence, as he otherwise Avould have done, by setting up the agreement for an extension. Consequently, at the proper time, October 30, judgments Avere taken against .him by default, of which it is averred he had no actual notice until November 3, after the term of the court had closed.

Without any unnecessary delay, Bush executed his notes and a mortgage to. the defendant Logan as trustee, in accordance with the agreement which had been made. They were all dated October 29, but the mortgage did not take effect *101 ■until after the judgments were rendered; For this reason, the lien of the judgments was prior to that of the mortgage. All the creditors represented at the meeting, except Easton and Stillwell, accepted .the notes, and now retain them. They are not parties to this suit, unless they are. represented by the assignee. Easton and Stillwell refused to carry out their agreement, and they rely on their judgments and the priority of lien thereby acquired.

On the 28th of February, 1874, proceedings' in bankruptcy were begun against Bush by some of his creditors, which resulted in an adjudication of bankruptcy and tk¿. appointment of Dudley as assignee, to whom, on the 24th of March, the general assignment was made milder the law. This bill was subsequently filed against Easton, Stillwell, Logan, the trustee 'under the mortgage, and Btish and wife. It sets forth the foregoing facts in detail, and then avers: —

“ Your orator further says that at the time-of the making of said agreement of extension and of said deed of trust said Bush had a large amount of property, not included or intended to be included in said deed, sufficient in value to satisfy all the debts owing by said Bush' to' his- other, creditors, who were not parties to said agreement; that said deed was not made, nor was said agreement entered into, by said Bush with any intent to .give a preference thereby to the parties to said agreement or any of them over his other creditors, or with the intent thereby to convey his said property or any of it in fraud of the provisions of said act of Congress or the acts amendatory thereof, but solely under the belief on the part of said B.ush that by obtaining such extension of' time of payment as aforesaid he would be enabled to pay all his creditors their debts in full, together with interest at the fate of ten per cent per annum ; that the entire indebtedness secured by said deed of trust, including that to said Stil-lwell' and Easton, amounted to $40,394.70, and that all the lands'mentioned in said deed were then thought .to be worth, and- in-fact were worth, the sum of $50,000, especially if a reasonable time could be obtained to negotiate a sale of the same; that .among the property described in said deed -of trust was that occupied by said Bush and his family as a homestead, out of which he was entitled to *102 liave set apart to him as exempt from levy and sale under execution a homestead of the value of $1,500 under the laws of this State; that because of the release of the dower interest of the defendant, Emma C. Bush, wife of said bankrupt, in all of his lands described in said deed, and the waiver and conveyance of all his right to exemption of a homestead given and made by said deed, and for other good and sufficient reasons, it is to the interest of all of the creditors of said bankrupt’s estate, save only said Easton and Stillwell, that the said deed of trust should be recognized, confirmed, and enforced by your orator as assignee as aforesaid, and in fact this bill is filed by your orator at the request and by the direction and on the behalf of all the creditors of said Bush, whether secured or unsecured, excepting only said Easttín and Stillwell.”

The prayer of the bill is as follows : —

“ Wherefore your orator prays that a decree may be made by your honorable court requiring the said defendants, Easton and Stillwell, on their part respectively to execute and perform said agreement, to accept said notes, and the benefit of said trust mortgage respectively, in satisfaction of the demands which they respectively had against said William P. Bush on the 29th of October, 1878, and then sued for in the said Monroe Circuit Court, and severally to execute to your orator a release of all lien and claim upon any real estate which was of said Bush at the time of the commencement of said proceedings in bankruptcy against said Bush, which they respectively may have under or by virtue of said several judgments of said Monroe Circuit Court, or under or by virtue of the levy of any execution issued thereon, and that said judgments as to said Bush may be set aside and for naught held and esteemed respectively, and that the-said defendants, Easton and Stillwell, may by said decree be forever enjoined and restrained from enforcing said judgments respectively, or from claiming any benefit or lien theréof as against any property which belonged to said Bush a,t the time of the rendition thereof, and that he may have all such other and further relief as to equity belongs and the- circumstances of his case may require.”

The first question to be' settled is, whether an assignee in bankruptcy can: sue for the relief which is asked. The inquiry

*103

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

Related

In re Christensen
561 B.R. 195 (D. Utah, 2016)
In re Jones
548 B.R. 658 (W.D. New York, 2016)
First Federal of Michigan v. Barrow
878 F.2d 912 (First Circuit, 1989)
First Federal of Michigan v. Barrow
878 F.2d 912 (Sixth Circuit, 1989)
In re National Public Service Corp.
88 F.2d 19 (Second Circuit, 1937)
Smith v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York
84 F.2d 608 (Eighth Circuit, 1936)
Stover v. Valley Nat. Bank of Chambersburg
48 F.2d 54 (Third Circuit, 1931)
Bunch v. Maloney
233 F. 967 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)
Brigman v. Covington
219 F. 500 (Fourth Circuit, 1915)
Butterfield v. Woodman
216 F. 208 (D. Maine, 1914)
In re Charles Town Light & Power Co.
199 F. 846 (N.D. West Virginia, 1912)
In re Hurst
188 F. 707 (N.D. West Virginia, 1911)
London v. Epstein
138 A.D. 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Hanson v. W. L. Blake & Co.
155 F. 342 (D. Maine, 1907)
Smith v. Township of Au Gres
150 F. 257 (Sixth Circuit, 1906)
First Nat. Bank of Buchanan County v. Connett
142 F. 33 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Empire State Trust Co. v. Trustees of William F. Fisher & Co.
60 A. 940 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1905)
Sellers v. Hayes
72 N.E. 119 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 U.S. 99, 26 L. Ed. 668, 14 Otto 99, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudley-v-easton-scotus-1881.