Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

178 U.S. 539

Mitchell v. McClure

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 1900

Submitted April 12, 1900.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1900-05-28

<p>A District Court of the United States has no jurisdiction, without the proposed defendant’s consent, to entertain an action of replevin by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover goods conveyed to the defendant by the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act and of his creditors.</p> <p>Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, followed.</p>

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 9–0 · Decided 1900-05-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably Local Loan Co. v. Hunt (1934), Securities & Exchange Commission v. United States Realty & Improvement Co. (1940)

22 federal appellate · 15 district · 8 state decisions

220190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Messrs. Thomas Patterson and S. Duffield Mitchell for plaintiff in error.

Mr. John S. Ferguson for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court:

¶1

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 $2,500, 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. Rep. 621. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court, and the district judge cerif ied that the question of jurisdiction was the sole question in issue.

¶2

For the reason stated in Bardes v. First Nat. Bank, ——U. S. —, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1000, post, p. 1001, just decided, the judgment is affirmed.

/178/us/539 · .json · Public domain