Hampton v. Rouse
Decision Date | 01 October 1874 |
Citation | 22 L.Ed. 755,22 Wall. 263,89 U.S. 263 |
Parties | HAMPTON v. ROUSE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; the case being thus:
A valuable planation in Mississippi belonging to Wade Hampton, and at the time in his possession, though mortgaged by him, was sold on the 11th of April, 1867, to John Rouse, under a statute of the State just named, entitled 'An act to incorporate the Board of Levee Commissioners, &c.'1 This act gives to this board power to assess taxes on lands such as the plantation of Hampton was, and if the taxes are not paid to have the sheriff sell the lands.
It contains, however, this provision on the subject of redemption:
In this state of things Hampton, on the 29th of December, 1868, applied for the benefit of the Bankrupt Act, and on the 17th of April, 1869, was decreed a bankrupt under it. On the 19th, an assignee in bankruptcy was appointed.
The Bankrupt Act of March 2d, 1867, the now existing act and the one under which Hampton was decreed bankrupt, enacts:2
The same section of the act, at its close, further directs that the district judge in that state of the case, shall issue a warrant directed to the marshal of the district, authorizing him to publish notices in such newspapers as the warrant specifies; to serve written or printed notices on all creditors named in the schedule filed with the petition of the applicant, and to give such notice to all concerned as the warrant directs, which notice shall state as follows:
(1.) That such a warrant has been issued.
(2.) That the payment of debts or the delivery or transfer of property to the debtor is forbidden by law.
(3.) That the creditors will meet, on a day therein named, to prove their debts and choose an assignee.
The twelfth section enacts that at the meeting of the creditors, such as the preceding section contemplates, one of the registers of the District Court shall preside, and that the creditors in his presence shall choose one or more assignees of the estate of the debtor.
The act then goes on in its fourteenth section thus:
'As soon as said assignee is appointed and qualified, the judge, or, where there is no opposing interest, the register, . . . shall by an instrument under his hand assign and convey to the assignee all the estate real and personal of the bankrupt, with all his deeds, books, and papers relating thereto; and such assignment shall relate back to the commencement of said proceedings in bankruptcy, and thereupon, by operation of law, the title to all such property and estate, both real and personal, shall vest in said assignee.'
The Bankrupt Act of 18413 differed, as to the mode and time of appointing the assignee in bankruptcy, from the now existing and above-quoted act of 1867. It ran thus:
Hampton being still in possession of his land, Rouse now brought ejectment against him for it; and on the trial Hampton offered to prove that on the 10th day of April, 1869—that is to say, 'within two years of the day of sale,' the same having been made as above stated on the 11th of April, 1867—his son, as his agent, offered to redeem the land, under circumstances which made the offer equivalent to a redemption.
The son testified in substance thus:
Mr. Haycroft, the levee treasurer, referred to above, testified that he occasionally sold the levee bonds, such as just above spoken of, as an accommodation to taxpayers, and with the proceeds paid the redemption-money; that he had done so in the case of other lands for Hampton; but that it was no part of his official duty so to sell bonds and apply the proceeds; that in this case he had told Hampton's son that he would have to pay in currency. He added, however, that the applications for redemption on the 10th of April, 1869, were so numerous that he could not on that day have attended to the redemption of these lands under any circumstances; and that on the 11th the time expired.
The court charged the jury,
'That Wade Hampton, having been adjudged a bankrupt on his own application, after the land was sold for the taxes, had thereby ceased to be the owner of the land, and had lost the right to redeem.'
And this charge was assigned for error.
Messrs. James Lowndes and W. W. Boyce, for the plaintiff in error:
It is clear that under the eleventh and twelfth sections of the Bankrupt Act, the decree in bankruptcy does not, under the present Bankrupt Act, divest the debtor of his estate, though under the act of 1841 it did do so in terms. Under the present act the decree only settles the fact that the debtor is a bankrupt; that is to say that he cannot now pay his debts as they come due.
It is by what is prescribed in the fourteenth section as to be done—that is to say, by the appointment of the assignee and the assignment and conveyance to be executed, 'as soon as said assignee is appointed,' that the debtor's property is divested. Now, as no assignee was appointed in this case, nor any assignment or conveyance made until several days after the offer to redeem was made, it can only be through the words at the close of the paragraph which declares that 'such assignment shall relate back, &c.,' that it can be pretended that the redemption was of no effect. But while the assignment and conveyance vest the assignee with 'the title to all such property and estate' as the bankrupt had when the proceedings were begun, it does not follow that they vest him with that title wholly unaffected by what has been lawfully done as to the estate in the meantime; what has been done by way of benefit to the estate. If, for example, a debtor at the time when the proceedings in bankruptcy were begun, had land heavily charged by mortgage, and by the voluntary act of the mortgagee the mortgage were satisfied, would the assignee take the land still subject to the mortgage or discharged from it? or if the debtor or any one else put on the land valuable improvements, would the assignee get those improvements or not get them? We suppose that the assignee in one case would take the land clear of the mortgage, and in the other would take it improved by the new erections. In the case now before the court, a defeasible estate is made by the act of the debtor, between the time of the decree and that of the assignment and conveyance, and indefeasible one. In this case as in the former ones, we suppose that the assignee in other words the creditors or the assets—get the benefit of what is done. They still get 'all the title to all such property and estate.'
But even if the estate were vested in the assignee the old owner could redeem.
'Any right which in law or equity amounts to an ownership in the land; any right of entry upon it, to its possession or enjoyment, or any part of it which can be deemed an estate, makes the person the owner, so far as it is necessary to give him the right to redeem.'
Now, though a man may be a bankrupt—that is to say, though he may be unable to pay all his debts as they fall due, and though his estate may be passed accordingly to his assignee in bankruptcy it does not follow that the debtor may not himself afterwards, from other property, coming to him by descent or gift or other good fortune, pay all his debts; nor follow that without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Casey v. Cooledge
... ... 5 Cyc ... 343-346; Black on Bankruptcy, § 322, pp. 719, 720, 721, and ... that of the Supreme Court of the United States, Hampton ... v. Rouse, 22 Wall. 263, 275, 22 L.Ed. 755; Conner v ... Long, 104 U.S. 228, 26 L.Ed. 723; Johnson v ... Collier, 222 U.S. 538, 32 S.Ct. 104, ... ...
-
Gitchell v. Kreidler
...v. H. & St. Jo. R. R., 64 Mo. 113; U. S. v. Villalonga, 23 Wall. 40; Shaff v. Improvement Co., 57 N. H. 110; Camp v. Rogers, 44 Conn. 291; 22 Wall. 263; 10 Wall. 464; 2 Ohio St. 14; 2 Ohio St. 123. (5) A mortgagee or cestui que trust after condition broken is owner of the premises. Washburn......
-
Leathem & Smith Lumber Co., Ltd. v. Nalty
... ... Plaintiffs rely upon ... section 14 of the bankrupt law of 1867; Bump, Bankr. (8th ... Ed.) notes; Rev. St. U. S. § 5044; Hampton v ... Rouse, 22 Wall. 275, 22 L.Ed. 755; Conner v ... Long, 104 U.S. 230, 26 L.Ed. 723; Brandenburg, Bankr. p ... 723m; Greene v. Taylor, ... ...
-
Jones v. Dils
...Cow. 88; Plowden Com. 113; Blackw. Tax Tit. ch. 2; 20 Ia. 134; 7 W.Va. 143; 22 Vt. 388; 16 How. (U. S.) 617; 18 Gratt. 100; 18 Wall. 549; 22 Wall. 263; Ia. 559; Blackw. Tax Tit. 412; 18 Johns. 441; 11 Ill. 420; 1 Harrington 11; 6 Mon. 206; Code, ch. 30, § 18; Code, ch. 31, §§ 6, 25; 7 Minn.......