Ruh v. Scott

226 F. 201, 141 C.C.A. 653, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2201
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJuly 26, 1915
DocketNo. 2075
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 F. 201 (Ruh v. Scott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ruh v. Scott, 226 F. 201, 141 C.C.A. 653, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2201 (7th Cir. 1915).

Opinion

BAKER, Circuit Judge.

Charles M. Scott, merchant, citizen of Illinois, on March 21, 1911, executed to one Earwell, as trustee, a deed of general assignment of his property for tire benefit of his creditors. On May 3, 1911, Scott was adjudged a bankrupt. Assignee Farwell surrendered the estate to the trustee in bankruptcy. Before the proceeds were distributed to creditors, Scott died, and his widow, appellee herein, under section 8 of the Bankruptcy Act, petitioned the court for an allowance of a “widow’s award” according to the statutes of Illinois. This was granted, and the trustee appeals.

Hull v. Dicks, 235 U. S. 584, 35 Sup. Ct. 152, 59 L. Ed. -, is authority for sustaining the award unless Scott’s assignment for the benefit of creditors makes a difference. But the Bankruptcy Act is of national scope and paramount authority. True, a general assignment for the benefit of creditors is not forbidden. It is an act of bankruptcy, regardless of solvency; but neither the debtor nor his creditors are bound thereupon to resort to the national courts. And so, pending a "petition in bankruptcy within the succeeding four months, the-assignment may be said to be only voidable; but the moment national jurisdiction attaches the assignment is absolutely void, no one, pending the attachment of national jurisdiction, can obtain any rights through or under the assignee, who stands, not as a purchaser, but only as the agent of the debtor, and the trustee in bankruptcy takes title from the debtor under the act the same as if the assignment had never been made. Collier on Bankruptcy, § 70, subd. 4; Remington on Bankruptcy, §§ 1606-1608; West Co. v. Lea, 174 U. S. 590, 19 Sup. Ct. 836, 43 L. Ed. 1098; Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188, 21 Sup. Ct. 557, 45 L. Ed. 814.

The order is affirmed.

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

Related

Wilkinson v. Goree
15 F.2d 399 (N.D. Texas, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 F. 201, 141 C.C.A. 653, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruh-v-scott-ca7-1915.