Hill v. Smith, 164

Decision Date15 January 1923
Docket NumberNo. 164,164
PartiesHILL et al. v. SMITH
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Geo. S. Fuller and Edward E. Blodgett, both of Boston, Mass., for petitioners.

Mr. Edward F. McClennen, of Boston, Mass., for respondent.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit upon a judgment. The defendant, Warren H. Hill, pleaded a discharge in bankruptcy. Subsequently he died and his executors, the petitioners, took his place. There was a trial before a judge without a jury. The plaintiff introduced proof that the judgment was unsatisfied and rested. The defendants proved the discharge and rested. In rebuttal the plaintiff introduced the schedules of creditors in bankruptcy of Hill in which schedules the plaintiff's name did not appear. The defendants asked for rulings that the burden was upon the plaintiff to show that he was not notified of the defendant's bankruptcy and that he had no knowledge of it. These were refused subject to exceptions and the Court found for the plaintiff. The exceptions were overruled by the Supreme Judicial Court and judgment was entered upon the finding. Smith v. Hill, 232 Mass. 188, 122 N. E. 310, 2 A. L. R. 1667. A writ of certiorari was allowed by this Court.

It is argued for the respondent that there is no jurisdiction in this Court because the attention of the trial judge was not called specifically to the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. §§ 9585-9656) as a ground for the rulings asked, and because, even if it had been, it is said, the burden of proof is to be determined by the practice of the State. As we are of opinion that the judgment was right we shall not discuss these objections at length. We deem it enough to say, as to the first, that the appellate court treated the question as open and decided it; and as to the second that here as in Central Vermont Railway Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 35 Sup. Ct. 865, 59 L. Ed. 1433, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 252, though perhaps in a somewhat less intimate and obvious way, the burden of proof is so connected with the substantive rights given to the respective parties by the statute—indeed so flows from the words of the statute—that the ruling upon it may be reviewed here.

The merits were fully and adequately discussed by the Supreme Judicial Court. In order to dispose of them it will not be necessary to repeat the distinction, familiar in Massachusetts since the time of Chief Justice Shaw, Powers v. Russell, 13 Pick. 69, and elaborated in the opinion below, between the burden of proof and the necessity of producing evidence to meet that already produced. The distinction is now very generally accepted, although often blurred by careless speech. Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, c. 9. The Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 17a(3), 30 Stat. 550, amended by Act of February 5, 1903, c. 487, § 5, 32 Stat. 798 (Comp. St. § 9601), provides that a discharge 'shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, except such as * * * (3) have not been duly scheduled in time for proof and allowance, with the name of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
139 cases
  • United States v. King, Case No. CR–13–0063–F
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • March 6, 2017
    ...persuasion (e.g., burden of proof) has been explained as follows by the Supreme Court:In the two decades after Hill [v. Smith , 260 U.S. 592, 43 S.Ct. 219, 67 L.Ed. 419 (1923) ], our opinions consistently distinguished between burden of proof, which we defined as burden of persuasion, and a......
  • Great Northern Ry Co v. State of Washington, 20
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1937
    ...L.Ed. 191; Central Vermont R. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 512, 35 S.Ct. 865, 59 L.Ed. 1433, Ann.Cas.1916B, 252; Hill v. Smith, 260 U.S. 592, 594, 43 S.Ct. 219, 220, 67 L.Ed. 419. 15 Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. C. H. Albers Comm. Co., 223 U.S. 573, 591, 32 S.Ct. 316, 56 L.Ed. 556; Creswil......
  • Jackson v. Oklahoma Memorial Hosp., 83924
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 17, 1995
    ...meet that already produced ... is now very generally accepted, although often blurred by careless speech." Hill v. Smith, 260 U.S. 592, 594, 43 S.Ct. 219, 219-20, 67 L.Ed. 419 (1923). In the two decades after Hill, U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence consistently distinguished between burden o......
  • Howard v. United States, 10061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 6, 1942
    ...279 U.S. 639, 49 S.Ct. 445, 73 L.Ed. 884, distinguishing Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, supra. 12 Hill v. Smith, 260 U.S. 592, 43 S.Ct. 219, 67 L.Ed. 419. 13 238 U.S. 507, 35 S.Ct. 865, 59 L.Ed. 1433, Ann.Cas.1916B, 252. 14 247 U.S. 367, 38 S.Ct. 535, 62 L.Ed. 1167. 15 304 U.S. 64......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT