Mitchell v. McClure

Supreme Court

Mitchell v. McClure

178 U.S. 539, 20 S. Ct. 1000, 44 L. Ed. 1182, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1699

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 28, 1900·No. 237·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

Mr. J ustioe Gray

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of replevin in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover a stock of goods, of the value of $2500, in the possession of the defendants, citizens of Pennsylvania and residents of that district, and alleged to have been conveyed to them by the bankrupt, within four months before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, in fraud of the Bankrupt Act of 1898, and of the creditors of the bankrupt. The District Court, on motion of the defendant, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an action, and therefore ordered it to be abated. 91 Fed. Bep. 621. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court, and the District Judge certified that the question of jurisdiction was the sole question in issue.

For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, just decided,

The.ffiidgmeni is affirmed.

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

Mr. J ustioe Gray

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of replevin in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover a stock of goods, of the value of $2500, in the possession of the defendants, citizens of Pennsylvania and residents of that district, and alleged to have been conveyed to them by the bankrupt, within four months before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, in fraud of the Bankrupt Act of 1898, and of the creditors of the bankrupt. The District Court, on motion of the defendant, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an action, and therefore ordered it to be abated. 91 Fed. Bep. 621. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court, and the District Judge certified that the question of jurisdiction was the sole question in issue.

For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, just decided,

The.ffiidgmeni is affirmed.

Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U.S. 539, 20 S. Ct. 1000, 44 L. Ed. 1182, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1699 (1900).

Pincite

178 U.S. 539 (Mitchell v. McClure) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related