Sample v. Beasley

• Citation: 158 F. 607
• Decision Date: 07 January 1908
• Docket Number: 1,671.
• Parties: SAMPLE v. BEASLEY et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

158 F. 607

SAMPLE v. BEASLEY et al.

No. 1,671.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 7, 1908

W. P Hall, for petitioner.

E. H Randolph, for respondent.

Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

McCORMICK Circuit Judge.

The petitioner filed two suits by ordinary process in the state district court for Caddo Parish, La., against the respondent J. C. Beasley, a resident of that parish, to enforce two separate mortgages on two separate tracts of land, one mortgage having been given on the 23d day of December, 1904 and the other on the 5th day of December, 1905. The respondent (defendant in the suits in the state court) pleaded to the same various defenses, which were not sustained, and that court rendered its decision in favor of the plaintiff in those suits for the amounts claimed in each case, with recognition of the mortgages sought therein to be foreclosed, and ordered the enforcement of the judgments to be effected on the lands described therein, and that the lands should be sold to pay the judgments. These judgments were rendered, respectively, February 2, 1907, and February 6, 1907, and thereon were promptly issued writs of fieri facias to the proper officer, who duly seized the lands and advertised them for sale in obedience to the writs, designating April 6, 1907, as the day on which the sales would be made. On that day, and before the sales, the respondent Beasley filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, and was adjudged a bankrupt, and on the same day, joined by his wife, obtained from the bankrupt court an order temporarily staying the sale and a rule on the sheriff and the petitioner (plaintiff in the state court) to show cause why the sale should not be perpetually stayed. The petitioner answered the rule, setting out the facts as above shown. The court of bankruptcy, after hearing argument, ordered that the rule be made perpetual.

Petitioner asks this court to revise that action on the grounds: (1) That the bankrupt court was without jurisdiction to stay proceedings on judgments rendered in the state court enforcing liens and mortgages of date long prior to four months preceding the petition and adjudication in bankruptcy (2) that the United States court erred in staying proceedings in the state court for the sale of property after the same had been seized on valid judgments and enforcing liens acquired more than four months prior to bankruptcy and taken in...