George Smith Middlings Purifier Co v. McGroarty
| Decision Date | 19 May 1890 |
| Citation | 136 U.S. 237,34 L.Ed. 346,10 S.Ct. 1017 |
| Parties | GEORGE T. SMITH MIDDLINGS PURIFIER CO. et al. v. MCGROARTY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 237-239 intentionally omitted] Joseph Wilby and J. C. Harper, for appellants.
Thos. McDougall, for appellees.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The claim of the plaintiff company, being for less than $5,000, is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction; and the appeal must therefore be dismissed as to that company. Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1163; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1066. But the claim of W. & F. Livingston, citizens of New York, who, by leave of the circuit court and amendment of the bill, were joined as plaintiffs, is more than $10,000, which is sufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal so far as concerns their claim; and Charles, also a citizen of New York, who was originally joined as defendant, not having been served with process, and the bill having been dismissed as to him, the case in regard to the citizenship of the parties was within the jurisdiction of the circuit court.
The plaintiffs, in the brief filed in their behalf, expressly 'disclaim any intention to impeach the transaction in controversy as one made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors,' and seek to maintain their bill on the sole ground 'that the transaction shown by the bill is within the operation of section 6343 of the Revised Statutes, and that, therefore, the attempted preferences should be decreed to inure to the benefit of the general creditors.' By section 6335 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio of 1880, 'when any person, partnership, association, or corporation, shall make an assignment to a trustee of any property, money, rights, or credits in trust for the benefir of creditors, it shall be the duty of said assignee' to file the assignment in the probate court of the county in which he resides, and to give bond, with sureties approved by that court, for the performance of his duties as assignee. By section 6343, 'all assignments in trust to a trustee or trustees made in contemplation of insolvency, with the intent to prefer one or more creditors, shall inure to the equal benefit of all creditors in proportion to the amount of their respective claims, and the trusts arising under the same shall be administered in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.' Subsequent sections provide for publishing notice of the appointment of the assignee, and for an appraisement and inventory of the property, the examination of the assignor and assignee on oath, the conversion of the property into money, the discharge of incumbrances, the proof of debts, and the distribution of the property among the creditors.
The objection taken to the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States upon the ground that the probate court of Hamilton county had exclusive jurisdiction of the matters in controversy cannot be sustained. Upon the allegations of the bill admitted by the demurrer, nothing appears to have been done in that court before the commencement of this suit except to file the voluntary assignment of the dbto r, and the bond of the assignee; and the circuit court clearly had jurisdiction of a bill by citizens of other states (who did not, so far as appears by this record, become...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harle-Haas Drug Company v. Rogers Drug Company
...198 Pa. St., 446; 75 F. 554; 53 Neb. 670; 36 Neb. 548; 42 Neb. 740; 45 Neb. 549; 175 Ill. 89; 130 Ill. 162; 78 Miss. 179; 74 Miss. 290; 136 U.S. 237.) It is that many cases hold that an insolvent corporation may give its directors preference over other creditors, although few of such cases ......
-
City Nat. Bank v. Goshen Woolen Mills Co.
...S. 312, 15 Sup. Ct. 621, 39 L. Ed. 713;Hollins v. Iron Co., 150 U. S. 371, 14 Sup. Ct. 127, 37 L. Ed. 1113;Purifier Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237, 10 Sup. Ct. 1017, 34 L. Ed. 346;Fogg v. Blair, 133 U. S. 534, 11 Sup. Ct. 476, 33 L. Ed. 721;Washburn v. Green, 133 U. S. 30, 10 Sup. Ct. 280,......
-
Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin
...742; Williams v. Kirtland, 13 Wall. 306, 20 L. Ed. 683; League v. Egery et al., 24 How. 264, 16 L. Ed. 655; Smith Purifier v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237, 10 S. Ct. 1017, 34 L. Ed. 346; Warburton v. Wright, 176 U. S. 484, 20 S. Ct. 404, 44 L. Ed. 555. When questions affected by the interpretat......
-
Black White Taxicab Transfer Co v. Brown Yellow Taxicab Transfer Co 13 16, 1928
...own way and the State Courts should be taken to declare what the State wills. See especially George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237, 241, 10 S. Ct. 1017, 34 L. Ed. 346. Mr. Justice BRANDEIS and Mr. Justice STONE concur in this opinion. 1 And see Watson v. Tarpley......
-
Unborn children as constitutional persons.
...Suydam v. Williamson, 24 How. 427; Williams v. Kirtland, 13 Wall. 306; League v. Egery et al., 24 How. 264; Smith Purifier v. McGroarty, 136 U.S. 237, 10 S. Ct. 1017; Warburton v. Wright, 176 U.S. 484, 20 S. Ct. 404. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 658-59 (1834) It is clear, there ......