42 Mich. 239 | Mich. | 1879
March 14, 1878, Cauffman & Dinkelspeil et ah, residents of the city of Éochester in the State of New York, filed a petition in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, praying therein that Schott & Eeibish of Detroit might be adjudged bankrupts. They’also filed a petition showing that Schott & Eeibish had disposed of their property in fraud of the Bankrupt Act, and obtained thereon from
The marshal 'found in the city of Detroit certain goods in boxes marked “ S. Schwab, Helena, Montana” which, believing to be a part of the assets of Schott & Feibish, he seized under the provisional warrant.
April 27, 1878, Schwab commenced an action of trover in the Superior court of Detroit against Salmon S. Mat-' thews, Christopher B. Mabley, Henry Michaels, Bernard. Eothschild and Ferdinand Hays, to recover the value of the goods so seized by the marshal. The defendants appeared in said action by their attorneys and put in a plea, and a judgment was on July 12th, 1878, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, which was in effect affirmed in this court. Mabley v. Judge of Superior Court, 41 Mich., 31.
In September, 1878, and during the pendency of certain proceedings in said Superior Court in reference to said judgment, the defendants therein, joining with Joseph L. Hudson, filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, in equity, against Samuel Schwab. A supplemental bill was afterwards filed. As the writ here asked for is to prohibit any interference with the prosecution of this equity case, a clear understanding is necessary, of the facts therein set forth, and of the object and purport of the bill.
The facts preceding, and which led to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings already referred to, are set forth quite fully, but are of no special importance in the determination of the questions here raised.
It is alleged that certain goods had been placed by Schott & Feibish in the possession of Joshua W. Smith and others, in violation of the provisions of the Bankrupt Act, and that the transfer thereof was made to prevent the property from coming into the hands of an assignee in bankruptcy, and that no sale thereof was made in
It is also alleged .that for the goods seized from other parties suits were commenced in the State courts against said marshal by the parties claiming to own the same, and from whose possession they were taken; that Schwab, April 27th, 1878, commenced’an action in the Superior Court, as already statéd; that said suit is at issue and upon the docket for trial at the then term of said Superior Court, and had been assigned for trial for October 8, 1878; that on' May 6, 1878, Schwab had commenced
Facts are then set forth tending to show that these goods remained the property of said bankrupts, and that the pretended sales to Schwab and others were fraudulent, etc.; and complainants aver that the goods named in the declaration in the said case commenced by Schwab in the Superior Court, are goods which were transferred through said Smith & Freund by the said Schott & Feibish when insolvent, and with the intent on their part to prevent them from coming into the hands of an assignee in bankruptcy, and to defeat the provisions of the Bankrupt Act; and that the sale was made within three months before the filing of the creditors’ petition, and that Schwab knew Schott & Feibish were insolvent, and were acting in contemplation of insolvency and bankruptcy proceed.ings, and to defeat the object of the Bankruptcy act; therefore complainants aver and charge that the sale was void and that the title of the goods became vested in the assignee.
It is then alleged that said Hudson, assignee, claims that by reason of such suits he is unable to proceed
Complainant Hudson states and claims that said Schwab’s suit in the Superior Court against said Matthews, as marshal, “is an obstruction to his duties in the settlement of said estate; that the same ought not to be allowed to be prosecuted in the State courts, where the complicated matters in relation to the alleged fraud in regard to the transfers of said goods cannot be fully determined, and that the suit so pending in the State courts in relation to the estate of said bankrupts are a direct obstacle to the speedy settlement and adjustment of the estate, and that the parties therein should be enjoined from the prosecution of said suits; and if said Samuel Schwab has any title or claim to said goods, he should litigate the same in the court of bankruptcy, where matters relating to said estate are pending. And said complainants also claim that the title of said goods so claimed by said Samuel Schwab involves the determination of the title of said Joseph L. Hudson, assignee of said Schott & Feibish in bankruptcy, under the Bankrupt Act. The State courts have no jurisdiction to try that question, and this court should determine the same.”
Complainants pray that Schwab and his attorneys be enjoined from any farther prosecution of said suit in said Superior Court, or in any other court of the State, in regard to the goods so seized by said Matthews as marshal, and for any damages therefor, and that if Schwab claims any title, lien, or interest therein, he proceed to
In February, 1879, a supplemental bill was filed by said complainants in said United States court reciting the substance of the original bill and service of a restraining order upon the attorneys of Schwab, and that no appearance or service upon Schwab had been put in or made, and that a copy of the restraining order had been filed in said cause in said Superior Court, and the action of said Superior Court in setting aside an order granting a new trial and reinstating the judgment in said cause, wherein Schwab was plaintiff and Matthews et al. were defendants, and the facts and proceedings in relation thereto; that an execution had been issued upon said judgment from said Superior Court and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Wayne county, and a levy made thereunder upon the property of defendant Mabley, and a sale thereon about to take place. Complainants pray for an injunction to restrain said Schwab from collecting or in any manner attempting to collect said Superior Court judgment, and to restrain the sheriff and attorneys in the case from attempting or directing the enforcement of said judgment, and that the collection of said judgment be perpetually enjoined and be declared null and void, and that the goods for which the judgment was rendered be decreed to have been at the time of the seizure by the marshal, a part of the estate of the bankrupts.
July, 1879, Schwab filed his bill of complaint in the Superior Court in equity, setting forth the commencement of suit by him in said court against Matthews et al., already referred to, and the various steps and proceedings
A motion was made by defendants Mabley and Matthews for a dissolution of this injunction, and denied. Hudson appeared in said chancery cause in said Superior Court, but has asked no relief by motion or otherwise. He now comes into this court and by petition asks that a writ of prohibition may issue to said Superior Court to prohibit it from any -farther proceedings in said chancery case, and from exercising jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof or parties thereto, and for such farther relief as justice may require.
Upon this petition an order was granted requiring the Judge of the Superior Court to show cause why a writ should not issue to prohibit any interference with said Hudson’s prosecuting his said equity suit in the United States Court to determine his title to ’ said goods, and the question now arises upon return made to that order.
From a careful examination and consideration of all the facts set forth in the original and supplemental bills filed in the U-nited States Court, it is apparent that the principal aim and object sought, if not indeed the only one, was, in the first instance, to prevent the prosecution
Be this as it may, however, and without adverting at length to the propriety or legality of seeking to set aside and having declared null and void in this way a valid judgment of the Superior Court, we cannot, from the showing made, - see how the assignee in bankruptcy can be at all delayed or obstructed in the performance of his duties by the judgment rendered -in the Superior Court, or the efforts of the plaintiff therein to collect the same from the defendants in that case. The assignee is not a party defendant in that case, and is neither personally nor as assignee bound by the judgment. The payment of that judgment by the defendants therein, or its enforced collection against them, cannot take away or affect injuriously the assets of the bankrupts in the hands of the assignee. There is no pretense made, in either the original or supplemental bill, that any person other than Schwab, as against the bankrupts or their assignee, claims the goods in dispute, or any part thereof or interest therein, and payment or satisfaction of the Superior Court judgment effectually settles all farther claim by Schwab to the goods or avails thereof, thus leaving the proceeds thereof unquestioned in the hands of the assignee to be distributed amongst the creditors of the bankrupts. How, therefore, the assignee or those he represents can be injuriously affected- by the collection of that judgment, is not apparent. True, those who indemnified the marshal, and those against whom the
We do not consider worthy of any very extended examination the right of the defendants in the Superior Court case to proceed in this way, either as sole complainants or joined with the assignee, to have set aside and declared void the judgment of a court of record, rendered against them in a cause of which the subject-matter was clearly within the jurisdiction of the court, and they were properly brought in, appeared and given an opportunity to defend. The complainants, who were defendants in that case, have not sought either the proper forum or remedy for that purpose, nor have they made any case entitling them to any such relief. The judgment rendered against them must be held conclusive,
The writ of prohibition is a remedy provided by the common law to prevent the encroachment of jurisdiction. It is a proper remedy in cases where the court exceeds the bounds of its jurisdiction, or takes cognizance of matters' not arising within its jurisdiction. It can only be interposed in a clear case of excess of jurisdiction, and may lie to a part and not to the whole. It simply goes to the excess of jurisdiction, and the application for the writ may be made 'by either the plaintiff or the defendant in the case, or if more than one, by either where the excess, of jurisdiction affects him. It can only be resorted to where other remedies are inef-' fectual to meet the exigencies -of the case. It is a preventive rather than a remedial process, and cannot, therefore, take the place of a writ of error or other mode (of review. It must also appear that the person applying for the writ has made application in vain for relief to the court against which the writ is asked. The writ is not granted as a matter of strict right, but rests in a sound judicial "discretion, to be granted or not according to the peculiar circumstances of each particular case when presented. 8 Bac. Ab., tit. “Prohibition;” 3 Bl. Com., 111; Appo v. People, 20 N. Y., 531; People v. Seward, 7 Wend., 518; Arnold v. Shields, 5 Dana, 21; Washburn v. Phillips, 2 Met., 299; Ex parte Hamilton, 51 Ala., 62; Blackburn Ex parte, 5 Pike, 22; High Ext. Rem., §§ 773, 765.