Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

94 F. 798

Goodier v. Barnes

United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York

Decided June 19, 1899.)

United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York · decided 1899-06-19

In Equity. Motion to dismiss the bill on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the action, which is brought by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside an alleged fraudulent transfer by the bankrupt of his property. All the parties are citizens of this state and reside in this district.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1931

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Sec. 23. (a) Tlie United States circuit courts shall have jurisdiction oí all controversies at law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, between trustees as such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or claimed by the trustees, in the same manner and to the same extent only as though bankruptcy proceedings had not been instituted and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants. (b) Suits by the trastee shall only be brought or prosecuted in the courts where the bankrupt, whose estate is being administered by such trustee, might have brought or prosecuted them if proceedings in bankruptcy had not been instituted, unless by consent of the proposed defendant, (c) The United States circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of bankruptcy, within their respective territorial limits, of the offenses enumerated in this act.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Louisville Trust Co. v. Marx

““A persuasive argument, sustained by several recent decisions, can be advanced in favor of the jurisdiction of the district court in these cases; but this conclusion, if affirmed, will not aid the complainant.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Murray v. Beal

Relies on Bernheimer v. Bryan · Carter v. Hobbs · Hicks v. Knost

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-06-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Bankruptcy — Jurisdiction of Circuit Court — Citizenship.

¶2Under Bankruptcy Act 1898, § 23, a circuit court of tlie United States has no jurisdiction of a bill in equity by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance of property by the bankrupt, when the bankrupt, the trustee, and the defendant are all citizens of the same state.

¶32. Same.

¶4Clause c of section 23, providing that “the United States circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of bankruptcy, within their respective territorial .limits, of the offenses enumerated in this act,” has no applicability to civil actions; the “offenses enumerated” meaning the crimes described in section 29.

¶5In Equity. Motion to dismiss the bill on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the action, which is brought by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside an alleged fraudulent transfer by the bankrupt of his property. All the parties are citizens of this state and reside in this district.

¶6Fred. G-. Fincke, for the motion.

¶7Fred. H. Hazard, opposed.

¶8COXE, District Judge.

¶9No papers have been submitted on this motion except the briefs. The court understands that no objection is made to the form of the motion and that the sole question which counsel desire the court to determine is whether or not the circuit court has jurisdiction of the action. The court has been unable to find an authority sustaining the jurisdiction; none is cited. A persuasive argument, sustained by several recent decisions, can be advanced in favor'of the jurisdiction of the district court in these cases, but this conclusion, if affirmed, will not aid the complainant. Although the authorities are not in accord as to the proper construction of the present act, they all, apparently, agree that section 23 prohibits the circuit court from entertaining jurisdiction of actions of this character. Burnett v. Mercantile Co., 91 Fed. 365; Mitchell v. McClure, Id. 621; In re Sievers, Id. 366; Carter v. Hobbs, 92 Fed. 594; In re Abraham 93 Fed. 767; Hicks v. Knost, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 336, 94 Fed. 625.

¶10*799The proposition that paragraph c of section 23 of the act is applicable to a civil action cannot be maintained. It is limited by express words to “the offenses enumerated in this act,” namely, the crimes described in section 29. The motion is granted.

/94/f1d/798 · .json · Public domain