*1 Phelps 29$ v. McDonald’.
Phelps v. McDonald. A., 1. subject country, duly a British bankrupt by resident in a was declared court, proper 10,1868, conveyance district Dec. and the of his was estate by register assignee. in the usual form made to an that he had At time against organized a claim the United commission May 8, (17 between the United Great Britain of 863), cognizance, Held, Stat. payment. took and made an award for that its passed assignee. statutory 2. by against requirement, that all suits bank- an in ruptcy brought years shall be within two from the time the cause of action accrued, by against relates to suits him parties with than bankrupt. Although equity a court of has within its territorial the real personal property subject-matter controversy, which is the may, necessary parties having it, compel, by appropriate pro- act, cess, performance every which, voluntarily by if done them according sitie, give the lex loci reí would full effect to its decree persdham.
Appeal from the Court District Columbia. Supreme 1874, 8, This was bill a filed Thomas J. Sept. Phelps amendment, R. McDonald. against, Augustine William By White was made defendant. that McDonald was alleges his on declared a petition bankrupt District Court of the United States for the Ohio, Southern District of. Dec. 10, 1868; that received, Phelps appointed assignee, 12, 1869, Feb. form the due of all the bank- assignment ; real and estate that rupt’s schedule of personal assets filed this item: “Claim Gen- bankrupt appears Osborne, others, eral of U. S. for Army, Janu- burning, from one to two ary thousand bales of February, my ” Louisiana; cotton in Arkansas and that this is the de- claim, scription schedule except duplicate filed in the office of the of said court the amount is register bales, claim, at stated seven thousand to thousand eight ” “ others, worthless; McDonald, designated 17,1869, court, March received his from the and that discharge thereafter obtained an Phelps, order having petitioned accounts, notes, certain sell judgments bankrupt, sale, at sold them White public becoming purchaser accounts uncollected the estate for the sum of belonging v. ’McDonald. Oct. 1878.] McDonald, dollars; was made for purchase twenty him, furnished and the claim transferred with money White. him by that,
The bill further prior filing petition alleges, had and valid claim just bankruptcy, *2 the for certain cotton the States destroyed army' United a, war; British civil that although the late being subject, during of this he for resident country, prosecuted many years commission British and American claim before organ- joint 8,1871, between the States under the of United ized May Britain; that to and Great was.finally adjudged valid; that, 25, 1873, the commission awarded Sept. “ $197,190 to of sum of be paid gold by government of her Britannic States'to the Majesty United government the above claim.” exhibit bill of annexed as an McDon-
To the complaint commission, to which shows his claim memorial the joint ald’s in- from of cotton made him in the as one arising purchases from the States under Secretary permits surrectionary the President of the and letters from United' Treasury the laws such ..and subsequent authorizing alleges repeal and its final destruc- cotton, before he remove the permits the Federal tion by army. claim, insisted that this thus from arising
The complainant breach of an States to United alleged obligation pro- ject cotton is not McDonald in the possession destroyed, in the schedule of the assets were sold that described which White, the defendant and afterwards the assignee assigned McDonald; that the schedule did not describe a himby from a violation claim arising per- President, and that the of it as mits given by designation ” “ was well added to the calculated worthless description given mislead; that the rules of the commission all joint required stated, did of claims to be assignments title; do, bis that the but claim original prosecuted title, to him on and not on that derived award was made that from the White assignee through bankruptcy; (cid:127)by purchase to the com- said award paid ought rightfully said for the benefit of the creditors of as assignee plainant v. schedule, claims, whose amount to as stated in his bankrupt, $177,380, the sum his estate ever realized from being dollars derived from the sale to White. twenty The bill then that McDonald said award to alleges assigned “ White, who took the full same with that said knowledge thereto;” McDonald had no valid title United States British paid agent city award, said and he is about Washington the same to pay McDonald. The bill for an injunction Mc- prays restraining White, them, Donald and or either of said receiving award, said fund decree that be held trust for the McDonald, creditors of said and be subject complainant’s bankruptcy. Process was served on both defendants. personally They answered, and the filed a A complainant replication. tempo- was awarded. consent of rary injunction Subsequently, by a decree was one half of the made amount parties, the award be received defendants to pay expense commission, the claim before the prosecuting joint *3 in receiver, half the hands placed W. as George Riggs, court; to await final and the action of the that McDonald exe- orders, cute all to enable the receipts, acquittances necessary receiver to obtain the fund. demurrer, their answer and filed a
The defendants withdrew effect, are, whereof in that the court-below had grounds case, but that the exclusive jurisdiction jurisdiction remained with District Court the United States for the Ohio; Southern District of that 'the bill was not filed within accrued; two when cause of action time years that the claim States did not United against give any right or to action either McDonald as his as- complainant tort, did, in that if such was in signee bankruptcy; right did that it not the bill and the pass assignee; appears by that no said action ground right against ever existed in of said States favor virtue of the as- assignee by in signment bankruptcy. demurrer, term of court sustained the special dismissed,
decreed that the bill be receiver pay over to the defendants in his hands. The coni- 801 Oct. 1878.] v. term, the de- plainant having where appealed general affirmed, cree was he the case here. brought Mr. F. P. Stanton and F. for the Mr. George Appleby appellant.
An
in
sue
assignee
in
court of
bankruptcy may
compe
tent
to recover the assets of
jurisdiction
John
bankrupt.
326;
son’s
v.
v.
Assignee
Woolw.
Lathrop, Assignee,
Bishop,
al.,
516;
521;
al.,
Drake et
91 U. S.
v.
id.
et
Eyster
Gaff
al.,
179;
Houseman,
Burbank v.
et
92 id.
Bigelow
v.
Claflin
93 id. 130.
Assignee,
The suit was not barred
Statute
Limitations. The
did
accrue until
right
assignee
against
al.,
the aw7ardwas made. Clark v. Clark et
Mr. William Cookand Mr. C. C.
contra.
The assets of the
claim
bankrupt, including
question,
White,
were
McDonald,
who
purchased
transferred it to
*4
whom was thus vested a
title as
perfect
assignee.
There
been no
of
concealment
the condition or
having
the sup
value
claim,
posed
is not
of
within the
the.case
principle
Clark v
al.,
Clark et
At the time of the sale worth- claim was less, a having a value. only possibility
As the fund must be considered as in being England, '
m
'Ct;
v.
in,
to,
did not
the title
claim thereon
interest
or
v. Ben
Oakey
in
pass
assignee.
assignment
bankruptcy
162, 163;
nett,
;
which record, we ourselves.to the salient shall points is in the address for our consideration. it presents action lies at- foundation contro- in an chose A in the schedule thus described It is versy. “ with his Claim bankruptcy: 'filed petition his assets Osborne, others, for U. S. burn- Army, General 1,000 2,000 from bales of or February, ing, January and Louisiana.” cotton Arkansas my as law soon an assignee The late bankrupt provided “ him or should all convey judge register appointed, Stat., estate, Rev. real bankrupt.” personal', should vest in there assignee, 5044. And sect. “ of action all the bankrupt’s things, for among cause of action which real personal, property, contract, from the arising he had against any person ” to his or detention injury property. unlawful taking *5 Phelps Get. McDonald» 1878.]- et al. Vasse Pet. has an bear-' Comegys 195) (1 important this case. It arose under law ing upon April bankrupt 19. The fifth and sixth Stat. sections authorized the commissioners to and real convey assignees “.all estate, nature and to which the personal every description, entitled, said be either in bankrupt law or may equity, manner whatsoever.”
Under act Yasse was declared á and received bankrupt his certificate of underwriter, had an He been discharge. as such received from those he had in- whom insured and demnified France, of their claims assignments Great against Britain, and In his return of his effects com- Spain. missioners, statute, he named pursuant the claims France and but not the claim against England, against Spain. The omission was made, to have been supposed honestly because there was then not the .spes slightest recuperando claim was as country. regarded hopelessly worthless. later,
More "than under a between twenty years Spain States, award was made for its payment. There, here, was demanded money by bankrupt the same lines to which we assignees, argument have in this case listened were the counsel in that pursued by ease with consummate learning ability. judgment the court was delivered Mr. Justice It sustained Story. creditors, the demand behalf of the and is exhaustive and conclusive. It is needless for us in this case over the same field of go
n discussion. remarks, however, fewA grounded chiefly upon be will not out of It will be authority observed place. claim and the claim Spain, the United foundation, here in rested the same question, upon that each was surrounded like circumstances.
There is no element of donation the payment ultimately Nations, made in such cases. no more individuals, than make Nor is it gifts foreign material that strangers. cannot enforced a suit under law municipal n such a authorizes In most proceeding. instances debt payment simplest sovereign depends wholly v:- is that the of the rule his will and The theory pleasure. what- is willing pay promptly always ready our since a’short time is but ever due to the creditor.' sued, be done now and it can *6 government the It is defined statute. enough the circumstances special made, is matter how the when transfer no exists the right does not uncertain the time of latter remote or payment. effect. has an decision final affect the former. Nor adverse valid the law of and as If demand be just, recognized fhe to nations, claimant, if the latter choose the government, alien so, it the do still attention govern- upon may press ment. to the the collect proceeds
If the thing right assigned, it, it with whithersoever adheres to and travels property ad rem and in Vested are inseparable. rights may go. They — an interest and' claims growing re possibilities coupled — to to The right out of the assignee. pass indemnity property whether the for the destruction property, unjust capture individual, is within or an be a clearly wrong-doer U. S. v. United Erwin category. 12,1869. Feb. The title this case bears date deed in register’s he stood Thereupon vested in the then became appellant. with all the McDonald, and was clothed the place he became before such. which had bankrupt belonged less than five within On the 25th of September, years the mixed com award was made after the assignment, mission, the United States between .sitting $187,190 Britain, in satisfaction for the and Great payment of the claim. considerations, it be sheer these would
In the fatuity light claim at and value of the the substantial character to deny deed. transfer time register’s sale under the order of tire that the insisted alleged But the title of divested assignee. District Court “ accounts, bill, the to sell certain order was According referred to as note's, The exhibit &c. judgments,” containing ” “ not in order, the sale is report copies petition, to include broad record. the order was enough Whether n it. whether the showed report question, Oct. 1878.] sold, which,
was are in the state of the questions record as-it is us, are we unable to determine. Doubts in such cases are be resolved But if the pleader. affirmative be conceded to both these a fatal still re- points, objection mains. McDonald went into His bankruptcy. peti- voluntary did tion not disclose that he was a British have We subject. of the claim in schedule filed description with his given brief and no definite informa- petition. vague, gave In tion. schedule filed with the he duplicate register pro- “it nounced worthless.” In himto assigning exempted property, “ unite in No other register exemp- saying, assets, made, tions because there are some old claims except amounts, their face called for. large upon inquiry find them I worthless.” He failed make. totally entirely he known that the cotton under a from the bought permit with an order from Treasury Department, accompanied President officers of aid directing army navy *7 it him the lines of the getting beyond insurgent territory, that it was lost to him of a reason sudden and unex- by change of thus pected legislation Congress, creating in'his favor the United States as could strong equity against well exist.
His memorial to the mixed commission was sworn to on the 187,1. of November, In that document his 25th losses are w-ith fulness and stated is in con- particularity. striking with the the trast schedules. When there meagreness had. claim, á transfer the the rules the commission been pro- “the mode and manner of such transfer must vided be The memorial silent this stated.” was This upon subject. — — f200,000 sold soon realize was for $20! asset nearly avers, admits, amended bill and the demurrer The that “the the in the bill mentioned White at. sale assets said purchased McDonald, the and with same at said fur- the request him.” nished by hand, is the case the as it is touching pre-
Such point demurrer of the sented the appellees allegations by the sale in the of this the complainant. Considering light cannot hesitate to hold it invalid. we We are not showing, the come before the lower may again unmindful VOL. IX. .
.806 «. court, court, this before the answers perhaps adduced the and that appellees parties, testimony by it then It is our may hinge controversy. purpose in such case to leave both courts unfettered by thing decide, this and in all as free to one opinion, respects way other, as if the had been considered by subject either tribunal. law that all suits bankrupt against required from should within two the time
assignee years brought Stat., 982, sect. cause of accrued. action Rev. p. suits But this relates provision
.
than
In a case
bankrupt.
parties
otherwise,
this it has no
If this were
like
application.
here
accrue until the award
made
cause
action
did not
was
set
to the fund awarded.
and McDonald
a claim
Clark
up
Clark,
Lastly, and that hence below had British court government, of the case. contest v. Clark was between In Clark where (supra), a fund in the assignee, touching treasury bankrupt not a from a Secretary, derived foreign government, though until from over was enjoined paying party,, settled in the suit then were pending. contestants also, Pet. the fund 221), In et al. v. Metz (16 Millnor refused was in the treasury. Secretary controversy them left of either party, a'djust recognize The contest was ended determination. judicial conflict aby below, affirmed the court a decree one of court, the parties receiving enjoining perpetually the money. *8 have, existence. assumes facts
This objection substance, wise, form or is in no either British government record, coercive action no final or judicial and a party In to and White. except is sought below, W. was ap- of the case George Riggs the progress receiver, fund. Of' to collect the with authority pointed without concurrence do the voluntary he could nothing course who was in eminent British agent, possession. just Oct. v. 1878.] receiver, consent of fund parties delivered By the final here for review decree he was brought directed it over tire- to to less certain and ex- pay appellees, charges award, incurred in and he was procuring penses thereupon be from his to office. We have heard no discharged objec- tion from to the fund placing the hands any quarter of the receiver.' has been in behalf none Certainly suggested of the whose are said to have been invaded. sovereignty has
But been that the were suppose,- suggested, money the British the seat of at the home exchequer, government, still the court below of the acquired jurisdiction parties cause, and had an important perform. duty
Such commissions as that which made the award here decide as to the claim question usually validity if ever, amount to be It is within their paid. rarely, to decide of the' claim. ownership They means have no the attendance of wit- or compelling parties nesses, no rules of to such a pleading applicable procedure case, tribunal, least, element at cannot foreign to have of the law supposed knowledge according which the is determined. The validity nations; claim the law of its depends upon ownership, upon the local is where the to have transfer jurisprudence alleged been made.
Hence, Vasse, v. v. Clark Clark Comegys (supra), arisen, like cases have claims to the fund conflicting involving awarded, and else. nothing case,
In this whether the be here abroad, is entitled have the settled whether assignee question finally he McDonald has the better court has This twice right. decided that a British sue can the United States in the subject Claims, because Court an American citizen permitted British sue the The act petition government by right. the court Congress creating requires United reciprocity. 178; O'Keefe, Wall. Carlisle id. If the claim of the were to the British presented of McDonald by petition right, were also in the absence of presented, parties, any judicial *9 v. con- to settle tbeir
determination, be would doubtless required form some other or in appropriate by interpleading, troversy in successful shall be finally If theappellant litigation. with his case, should be presented petition, this record arise, must favor such question judgment there; to be fund why follow. Conceding necessarily this be settled in should this not paramount right sub- case; be than that claimant should rather American other inconveniences jected delay, expense, be as suit tribunal? The would before foreign adjudication one case as in the other. binding it are a court of Where equity, necessary parties it is that the whether immaterial res controversy, real or is the territorial jurisdiction personal beyond property, to tribunal. It has the to defendant power compel sites, to loci rei which do all the lex things according necessary, he full to the decree could do éffect give voluntarily, him. such
Without to the situation the subject-matter, regard courts between the and decree in consider equities parties, obedience to those enforce equities, according personam sect. to their decrees Story, Eq., by process personam. 249; Baltimore, 899; v. v. 2 Wall. Penn Miller Lord Sherry, Bunch, 2 444; 1 Ves. Mitchell v. Y.), Paige (N. reversed, below will be decree of court remanded with
cause directions proceed conformity this is opinion; ordered. So Miller, with whom concurred Me. Justice Mr. Justice Field, dissenting. made, which is the award was suit, to Great of this for
subject-matter provides payment and the award of claims British subjects, Britain injury orders the this case in terms express money paid Vasse v. of that Comegys agent country. Clark, are cases of awards cited in Clark opinion, use of citizens. for the its made in favor of the a fund within so awarded While the properly People. University Oct. 1878.] courts, own.citizens, of our do as are also our I think courts those have control the British over govern- *10 ment or its in the distribution of the fund awarded agents them. record, it,
It does not read from as I appear any thing the fund been has ever controversy paid voluntarily into court of an indeli- by agent government. transitu, cate of courts this to seize in attempt by country citizens, for its own what this has by treaty agreed government to another for its pay subject.
University People. 1855, Illinois, passed in declares that property A of all the statute of the North- University ever sln.ll be for free from taxation. by western As construed by Supreme State, Court 1872, the assessors statute of con- 1870, forming new constitution exemption taxation to the limited this property by Held, in immediate use land and other the institution. 1. That obligation impaired the exemption the latter statute the contract of found of 1855. That whether the statute the statute of 1855 is valid con- tract, by conflicting its void reason of or is State Constitution of made, 1848, which it is a judgment on which the of that lots, lands, S. That reviewed here. property court can be and other which, university, profits way otherwise, the annual of rent or are purposes school, could, institution as a devoted to within the mean- Constitution, exempted ing taxation, of that statute and that the exempting legislature power of occupied was not to real limited estate university. use immediate Court Scate Illinois. Error Supreme Term, 1875, of th'e At the June Court Cook County County, Illinois, manner the revenue application, prescribed by State, was collector, law of the made for a county judg- lands in ment for the taxes county, delinquent State, them levied and assessed for the year town, school, and municipal In county, corporation purposes. list were embraced some four hundred and twenty-seven distinct Northwestern belonging parcels University. filed Pending application, University appeared