178 U.S. 541 - Hicks v. Knost — 178 U.S. 541

How this case has been cited

Cited by 172 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1985 · most notably Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co. (1931), Straton v. New (1931)

61 federal appellate · 54 district · 13 state decisions

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.

¶1certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the SIXTH CIRCUIT.

¶2A District Court of the United States has jurisdiction, by the proposed defendant’s consent, but not otherwise, to entertain a bill in equity by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover property conveyed to the defendant by the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act and of his creditors.

¶3Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, followed.

¶4The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

¶5Mr. Chernies M. Peak for appellant.

¶6Mr. Frederick Hertenstein for appellee.

¶7Mr. Justice Gray

¶8delivered the opinion of the court.

¶9This was a bill in equity in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, against a creditor of the bankrupts, to recover money to the amount of $2780, paid by the bankrupts to the defendant, with intent to prefer the defendant and to defraud the creditors of the bankrupts, within four months before the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Both parties were citizens of Ohio and residents of that district. The District Court dismissed the bill, for want of jurisdiction. 94 Fed. Rep. 625. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which certified to this court the following question:

“ Has- a District Court of the United States jurisdiction to entertain a bill in equity filed by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by it, against a fraudulent grantee or transferee of the bankrupt resident in its district, to recover the property belong*542ing to the estate of the bankrupt, and by him fraudulently conveyed to defendant?*'

¶10For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank just decided, the answer to this question must be that the District Court has such jurisdiction by the consent of the proposed defendant, but not otherwise.

¶11Ordered aeeordmgly.