Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. Hudson

• Decision Date: 23 March 1903
• Docket Number: 1,761.
• Parties: HARGADINE-McKITTRICK DRY GOODS CO. v. HUDSON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

122 F. 232

HARGADINE-McKITTRICK DRY GOODS CO. v. HUDSON et al.

No. 1,761.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 23, 1903

Charles Claflin Allen (J. D. Johnson and Eben Richards, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Lester McLean (W. Scott Bicksler, Edmon G. Bennett, and John F. Lee on the brief), for defendants in error.

On the 31st day of December, 1901, the Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Company, plaintiff in error, brought this action at law against John Robert Hudson, the defendant in error, founded on the record of a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant in the district court of Burnett county, Tex., on the 10th day of April, 1891, for the sum of $10,939.92. The defendant answered, admitting the recovery of the judgment, and setting up these defenses: (1) That, being a resident and citizen of the state of Colorado, he was on the 29th day of January, 1900, duly adjudged a bankrupt by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and that on the 17th day of April, 1900, he was duly discharged as a bankrupt by the order of that court from the payment of all debts provable against his estate on the 26th day of January, 1900; (2) that the plaintiff, prior to the 11th day of August, 1900, appeared before the referee in bankruptcy having charge of the defendant's estate in bankruptcy, and filed for allowance against the defendant's estate a claim founded on the identical judgment sued on in this action, which claim was, upon due hearing and consideration, disallowed by the referee, and that the plaintiff filed a petition for a review of the order and judgment of the referee by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, whereupon the referee, on the petition of the plaintiff, duly certified the claim and his ruling thereon to the District Court for review, and upon full hearing and consideration that court, on the 25th day of February, 1901, confirmed the ruling of the referee and entered judgment disallowing the plaintiff's claim based on the judgment. The plaintiff's replication admits that it filed for allowance against the estate of the bankrupt its claim, based on the judgment in suit, and that the same was disallowed by the referee, and upon review was also disallowed by the District Court; but it alleges the ruling of the referee in the cause, and the judgment of the District Court affirming the referee's ruling, proceeded upon the ground that the plaintiff's cause of action on the judgment was barred by the statute of limitations of the state of Colorado, and avers that it was not barred by the statute of limitations of the state of Texas, wherein the judgment was rendered, or of the state of Missouri. The replication further set up that the debt, which was the foundation of the judgment sued on was created by fraud. On motion of the defendant the portions of the replication which we have epitomized were stricken out; the 'motion to strike' seemingly performing the office of a demurrer. By agreement of the parties a jury was waived, and the cause tried before the court, which made a general finding in favor of the defendant and rendered judgment (C.C.; 111 F. 361) accordingly, and the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

CALDWELL Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

The plaintiff having voluntarily gone into the bankrupt court and submitted itself to the jurisdiction of that court, and filed its claim against the bankrupt's estate founded on the judgment here in suit, and that court having disallowed the claim and entered judgment accordingly, and that judgment remaining in full force and virtue, constitutes a complete bar to this action. It is not material upon what ground that court rested its judgment. It unquestionably had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and, if either party conceived its judgment was for any reason erroneous, the remedy was by appeal, and not by a suit on the same cause of action in another jurisdiction against the bankrupt.

But if as is claimed by the plaintiff in error, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, disallowed the claim upon the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations of that state, that court committed no error in so doing. The bankrupt was a resident and citizen of the state of Colorado. If he had been sued on the record of the judgment here in suit before he was adjudged a bankrupt, either in the state of United States court in Colorado, he could have successfully interposed the statute of limitations of that state as a defense to the action. And when he was adjudged a bankrupt, and the plaintiff filed its claim before the referee, it was open to that officer in like manner to interpose the statute of limitations of the state of Colorado as a defense to the claim. There is no support in reason or authority for the contention that no debt barred by the statute of limitations of the state where the bankruptcy proceeding is pending is provable in bankruptcy, or discharged by a discharge in bankruptcy, if by...