Jenkins v. Loewenthal

Decision Date21 January 1884
Citation28 L.Ed. 129,110 U.S. 222,3 S.Ct. 638
PartiesJENKINS, Assignee, etc., v. LOEWENTHAL and others
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

W. T. Burgess, for plaintiff in error.

Julius Rosenthal and A. M. Pence, for defendants in error.

WAITE, C. J.

This suit was brought by Robert E. Jenkins, as assignee in bankruptcy of Samuel J. Walker, a bankrupt, to recover certain lands conveyed by the bankrupt to Eli Kinney, on the alleged ground that the conveyances, though absolute on their face, were intended tended as mortgages. Two defenses were interposed among others, one that the defendants, who are the present owners of the property, are innocent purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice of any outstanding equities in the assignee or the bankrupt; and the other that the suit was not brought within two years after the alleged cause of action accrued to the assignee. Rev. St. § 5057. Either of these defenses, if sustained, bars the action. The second involves a federal question, the other does not. The court in its decree sustained tained them both, and, among other things, found as a fact that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. As this finding is broad enough to maintain the decree, even though the federal question involved in the other defense was decided wrong, we affirm the decree, without considering that question or expressing any opinion upon it. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, sustains this practice Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Fuller v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 16, 1932
    ...assignee in bankruptcy governs the state courts, see Jenkins v. Bank, 106 U. S. 571, 2 S. Ct. 1 [27 L. Ed. 304] and Jenkins v. Lowenthal, 110 U. S. 222, 3 S. Ct. 638 [28 L. Ed. 129].’ In Rock v. Dennett, 155 Mass. 500, 30 N. E. 171, 172, the court said, as to the objection that the federal ......
  • United States v. Hastings
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1935
    ...has been to dismiss the writ of error or appeal. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 634, 635, 22 L.Ed. 429; Jenkins v. Lowenthal, 110 U.S. 222, 3 S.Ct. 638, 28 L.Ed. 129; Hale v. Akers, 132 U.S. 554, 565, 10 S.Ct. 171, 33 L.Ed. 442; Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U.S. 73, 78, 12 S.Ct. 141, 35 L.Ed......
  • Fuller v. Rock
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 16, 1932
    ......Clark, further say: "That a. similar statute in regard to suits by or against an assignee. in bankruptcy governs the State courts, see Jenkins" v. The. Bank, 106 U.S. 571 [2 S.Ct. 1, 27 L.Ed. 304], and Jenkins v. Lowenthal, 110 U.S. 222 [3 S.Ct. 638, 28 L.Ed. 129].\". . .         \xC2"......
  • Rutland Co v. Central Vermont Co
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1895
    ...writ of error will be dismissed, without considering the federal question. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590; Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U. S. 222, 3 Sup. Ct. 638; Beaupr e v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397, 11 Sup. Ct. 296; Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping March. Co. v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293,......
  • 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