2 Story 322 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts | 1842
The question for the decision of this court is, whether by law an injunction can be issued against Ayers, the assignee of Barnes, under the insolvent act of Massachusetts, as prayed for in the petition of Eames; and this involves the simple consideration, whether the bankrupt act of the United States of 1841, c. 9, when it came into operation in February last, sus-Xjended the operation of the insolvent act of Massachusetts, as to persons within the purview of the bankrupt act, who might afterward become insolvents. If it did, then the injunction ought to be granted; if it did not, then it should be refused.
My opinion is, that, as soon as the bankrupt act went into operation in February last, it, ipso facto, suspended all action upon future cases, arising under the state insolvent laws, where the insolvent persons were within the purview of the bankrupt act I say future cases, because very different considerations would, or might apply, where proceedings un-deranystate insolventlawswere commenced, and were in progress before the bankrupt act went into operation. It appears to me, that j both systems cannot be in operation or apply at the same time to the same persons; and where the state and national legislation upon the same subject, and the same persons, come in conflict, the national laws must prevail, and suspend the operation of the state laws. This, as far as I know, has been the uniform doctrine, maintained in all the courts of the United States. i
Indeed, I consider this whole matter in effect disposed of by the reasoning of the supreme court in the ease of Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. [17 U. S.] 122. Mr. Justice Washington and myself were of opinion in that case, that the power to pass a bankrupt law was exclusively vested in congress by the constitution of the United States; and that no state could pass a bankrupt law, or an insolvent law, having the effect of a bankrupt law, where it discharged the debtor from the obligation of his prior contracts.
I shall, therefore, direct it to be certified to the district court, that in this case, by law, an injunction can be issued against the said Ayers, as prayed for in the said petition of i Barnes.
See Mr. Justice Washington’s opinion in Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 203, 204.