Bachrack v. Norton
| Decision Date | 09 December 1889 |
| Parties | BACHRACK v. NORTON et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sawnie Robertson, for plaintiff in error.
John Johns and D. A. McKnight, for defendants in error.
This is an action on a marshal's bond, against him and his sureties, to recover damages for his wrongful taking of the goods of the plaintiff under an attachment issued out of the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Texas, against one Myerson. According to the decision in Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U.S. 421, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289, it is a case arising under the laws of the United States, and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, without any averment of citizenship of the parties. The plaintiff avers that Myerson had previously assigned the goods to him for the benefit of his creditors, and sets out a copy of the assignment. The defendants demurred to the petition, or, in the language of the Texas practice, filed a special exception, the principal ground of which was that it appears by the petition that the plaintiff was a resident and citizen of Missouri, and therefore could not lawfully be an assignee under the laws of Texas. The court below entertained this view, and sustained the exception, and, the plaintiff having declined to amend, the cause was dismissed. The question, therefore, is whether the view taken by the court below was, or was not, erroneous.
The assignment was made on the 22d day of October, 1880, under the act of the legislature of Texas, approved March 24, 1879, which was before this court in the case of Cunningham v. Norton, 125 U.S. 77, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804. In that case the provisions of the act were examined in extenso, and we held that it was intended to favor general assignments by insolvents for the benefit of their creditors, and to sustain them, notwithstanding technical defects, provided they assigned all the property of the debtor. The assignment in the present case is substantially the same in form as in the case of Cunningham v. Norton. The only material difference, if it is material, is the fact that the assignee was a resident of the state of Missouri, and not of Texas. As to this, the allegation of the petition is 'that at the time of making of said assignment he [the plaintiff] was a resident of the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri; but that, while holding his domicile in said state last named, his business lay in the state of Texas, and for the greater part of the year, before and since said time of the making of said assignment, he was in said state of Texas, in pursuance of his calling in said state; that at, before, and since the time of said assignment he was, in pursuance of his calling, frequently in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Clark, 8158Y.
...is clearly within these principles. See Feibelman v. Packard, 1883, 109 U.S. 421, 3 S.Ct. 289, 27 L.Ed. 984; Bachrack v. Norton, 1889, 132 U.S. 337, 10 S.Ct. 106, 33 L.Ed. 377; Lammon v. Feusier, 1884, 111 U.S. 17, 4 S.Ct. 286, 28 L.Ed. 337; Bock v. Perkins, 1891, 139 U.S. 628, 11 S. Ct. 67......
- People v. Duffield
-
Clark v. Southern Pac. Co.
... ... to the citizenship of the parties. Doolan v. Carr, ... 125 U.S. 618, 8 Sup.Ct. 1228, 31 L.Ed. 844; Bachrack v ... Norton, 132 U.S. 337, 10 Sup.Ct. 106, 33 L.Ed. 377; ... Simkins, Suit in Equity, p. 103; 2 Bates, Fed. Proc. at Law, ... Sec. 668, citing ... ...
-
State of Tennessee v. Union Planters Bank Same v. Bank of Commerce 761
...v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 112 U. S. 414, 5 Sup. Ct. 208; New Orleans v. Houston, 119 U. S. 265, 7 Sup. Ct. 198; Bachrack v. Norton, 132 U. S. 337, 10 Sup. Ct. 106; Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375, 13 Sup. Ct. 340. And under section 2 of that act, which provided that any suit of a civil ......