Zeigler v. Shomo
| Decision Date | 11 October 1875 |
| Citation | 78 Pa. 357 |
| Parties | Zeigler <I>versus</I> Shomo. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county: Of July Term 1874, No. 17.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
G. E. Farquhar and F. W. Hughes (with whom were O. P. Bechtel and J. W. Ryon), for plaintiff in error.—A copy of the record of the deed from the register to the assignee was not admissible, not having been acknowledged or proved as required by Act of May 2d 1715, sect. 2, 2 Sm. Laws 94, 1 Br. Purd. 460, pl. 10; the recorder therefore had no right to record it: Stonebreaker v. Short, 8 Barr 155. Both parties claiming under Turner the proviso of the Act of April 15th 1869, sect. 1, Pamph. L. 30, 1 Br. Purd. 624, pl. 16, does not apply: Karns v. Tanner, 16 P. F. Smith 305.
James Ryon and B. W. Cumming (with whom was M. Strouse,) for defendant in error.—The Bankrupt Act of 1867, sect. 14, requires the assignment of the register to be recorded in every state where a conveyance of bankrupt's lands ought by law to be recorded. Loose delarations of the holder of a legal title that it is held in trust for another are inadmissible: Cowden v. Oyster, 14 Wright 373. Declarations of the person who created the trust, made in the absence of the trustee, are not alone evidence to establish it: Tritt v. Crotzer, 1 Harris 451; Edwards v. Edwards, 3 Wright 378. The expressions must be contemporaneous with act of disposition or in contemplation of it: Kilpin v. Kilpin, 1 Myl. & K. 537; Hill on Trustees 2: Sugden on Vendors 131. Declarations of an insolvent husband are not evidence to prove that property was purchased with his wife's money: Bradford's Appeal, 5 Casey 513.
The deed of assignment, John P. Hobart, register in bankruptcy, to Jacob Pyle, assignee of Elijah W. Zeigler, not having been acknowledged according to the requirements of our Acts of Assembly, was not a fit subject for record, and hence the admission in evidence of the copy thereof, appearing upon the recorder's book, was erroneous. True, the Act of Congress requires these deeds of assignment to be recorded in every office of registry of deeds in the United States, where a conveyance of any lands owned by the bankrupt ought to be recorded, but, as it does not provide any mode of authentication, it follows that the mode prescribed by the several states must be pursued. We are not, however, prepared to reverse for this error, as we do not think the paper had any significance in the case, and hence its admission was productive of no harm. Had the assignee made the sale on his own motion this deed would have been all important, as without it there would have been no warrant for such sale. But his action, in the case presented, is under and by virtue of the authority of the District Court of the United States. Where the property of the bankrupt is encumbered, or where the title thereto is in dispute the assignee has no power to sell except under the order and direction of said court. Hence, in such case, it is this order, and not the deed of the register, which empowers the assignee to act: Rev. Stats. U. S., § 5063; In re Graves, 1 Bank. Reg. 19; In re Salmons, 2 Id. 19. The inquiry, then, is one limited to the question of the jurisdiction of the above-named court; about this, however, there is and can be no dispute. For not only has it such jurisdiction, but from the moment of the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy the property and estate of the bankrupt are in the custody of that court, and its jurisdiction over them is superior and conclusive: Bump's Bankruptcy 152 and 153, and authorities there cited. It follows, that the decrees of that court, upon the subject-matter in hand, are final and absolute. We have, further, the petition of Pyle the assignee, setting forth the fact that the title of Zeigler to the property therein described was disputed, and praying for an order of sale; the approval thereof by the register; the return and report of sale; the decree of the court confirming the same, and the deed to Shomo in pursuance of said decree. Thus we not only find the general jurisdiction ample, but we also find the proceedings necessary to bring that jurisdiction to bear upon the special case. The purchaser having discovered this condition of affairs was bound to look no further. As is said in McPherson v. Cunliff, 11 S. & R. 432, with reference to Orphans' Court sales: "The purchaser is not bound to see further back than the order of the court; he is not to see whether the court was mistaken in the facts of debts and children; his contract is in truth with the court." So we say as to the case in hand; Shomo was not bound to look beyond the order of the District Court to see whether every particular had been complied with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth ex rel. Scott v. McAleese
... ... court of the United States; its jurisdiction is superior and ... its decrees final and absolute:" Zeigler v ... Shomo, 78 Pa. 357 ... The ... great weight of authority is to the effect that the state ... statutes are suspended whenever they ... ...