Young v. Parker's Administrator
| Decision Date | 02 December 1889 |
| Citation | 33 L.Ed. 352,132 U.S. 267,10 S.Ct. 75 |
| Parties | Young et al. v. Parker's Administrator |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
T. B. Swann, for appellants.
S. A. Miller and J. F. Brown, for appellee.
In December, 1865, Milton Parker filed his bill in the circuit court of Kanawha county, W. Va., against John N. Clarkson and some 70 other defendants, seeking the marshaling of assets, and the subjection of Clarkson's property to the satisfaction of certain judgments held by the complainant against him, which appears to have been treated, and may be considered, as having been intended to bring all Clarkson's creditors into concourse, and, after the adjustment of the liens of those having security, to devote any remaining property, or any surplus arising upon the securities, to the discharge of his liabilities. The cause was referred to a commissioner to take, state, and report an account of the property owned by Clarkson, and the liens thereon, and their priorities; and various reports were made in the premises. On the 8th day of July, 1871, C. G. Hussey & Co. and John Johns, assignee of John N. Clarkson in bankruptcy, described in an order of the circuit court of that date as defendants, filed their petition and affidavit, sworn to by 'J. N. Clarkson, a party to the above-mentioned suit,' for the removal of the cause into the United States court for the district of West Virginia, in these words: etc. The cause was thereupon ordered to be removed as prayed.
On the 10th day of April, 1872, another order was entered in the case by the state circuit court, reciting that a mistake had been made in respect to the filing of a bond upon removal; and, the bond being now filed, the court directs such removal on the petition of July 8, 1871, and 'on the affidavit of the said C. G. Hussey, this day filed, the sufficiency of which affidavit and bond is hereby approved by this court.' The affidavit referred to is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp.
-
Stamm v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company
...Kellam v. Keith, 144 U.S. 568, 12 S.Ct. 922, 36 L.Ed. 544; Jackson v. Allen, 132 U.S. 27, 10 S.Ct. 9, 33 L.Ed. 249; Young v. Parker, 132 U.S. 267, 10 S.Ct. 75, 33 L.Ed. 352; Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U.S. 230, 9 S.Ct. 518, 32 L.Ed. 914; Kraut v. Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp., D.C.N.Y., 1......
-
Hanrick v. Hanrick Brady v. Same
...Ct. 440; Iron Co. v. Ashburn, 118 U. S. 54, 6 Sup. Ct. 929; Hancock v. Holbrook, 119 U. S. 586, 7 Sup. Ct. 341; Young v. Parker's Adm'r, 132 U. S. 267, 270, 271, 10 Sup. Ct. 75. The act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 2, authorized any suit in a state court 'in which there shall be a controvers......
-
La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co.
...130 U.S. 230, 9 S.Ct. 518; Crehore v. Railway Co., 131 U.S. 241, 9 S.Ct. 692; Jackson v. Allen, 132 U.S. 27, 10 S.Ct. 9; Young v. Parker, 132 U.S. 267, 10 S.Ct. 75; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U.S. 571, 10 S.Ct. 196; Confiance Compagnie d'Assurance Contre l'Incendie v. Hall, 137 U.S. 590, 11 S.Ct......