Recent Bankruptcy Decisions.

DEFENSE.

WHEN DISCHARGE IS, AND IS NOT: Conveyance in Fraud of CREDITORS ; PRACTICE: CROSS-BILL.-A discharge in bankruptcy cannot be set up as a general defense to an action by a creditor to set aside a conveyance in fraud of creditors pending at the time of filing the petition, where such creditor has not proved his claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the assignee has not interfered in the cause in any way. But the discharge may be set up in such action in bar of a personal judgment against the bankrupt other than the sub jection of the property and claims reached by the creditor's bill to the satisfaction of the judgment. A conveyance made in fraud of creditors is voidable and not void, and the property embraced in it does not absolutely vest in the assignee as a portion of the bankrupt's estate. A cross-bill setting up defendant's discharge in bankruptcy is not defective in not making his assignee a party, where almost four years have elapsed since the appointment of the assignee, and he has made a final settlement and been discharged. Illinois Sup. Ct. Phelps vs. Curts, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 85.

:

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.

WHAT IS CONVEYANCE TO WIFE WHEN IN FAILING CIRCUMSTANCES: JUDGMENT AGAINST MARRIED WOMAN :-Where one of the members of a firm, which is doing a large but failing business on a limited capital, withdraws over one third of his share of the capital to build upon property which he conveys to his wife, but which appears upon the firm books as an investment of the firm until charged up to him after an assignment by such firm prior to an adjudication in involuntary bankruptcy: Held, that such conveyance to the wife is void, and that the assignee in bankruptcy is entitled to the proceeds of the property as against a joint creditor who has taken a mortgage thereon as security for his debt. A judgment in personam cannot be taken against the wife of a bankrupt, or her executors, for the value of real or personal property conveyed to her in fraud of creditors. U. S. Sup. Ct. Phipps vs. Sedgwick, assignee, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 64.

WHAT NECESSARY TO MAKE IT, IN FRAUD OF BANKRUPT LAW: BAD FAITH MUST BE PROVED. In order to render void a conveyance made by a bankrupt within four months of filing a petition, with a view to give a preference, or other conveyance within six months, it must appear that the person taking it knew that it was made in fraud of the provisions of the Bankrupt Act in the one case, or to prevent the property coming to the assignee, or from being distributed under the Act, in the other. A conveyance made to secure an actual loan is valid if made and taken in good faith. Neither bad faith nor its equivalent, conduct wanting in good faith, is to be assumed, but must be proved) U. S. Dist. Ct. Vermont. Campbell, assignee, vs. Waite, 16 Nat Bankr. Reg. 93.

L

ATTACHMENT.

DISSOLUTION OF LIEN OF, BY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS: IGNORANCE OF ATTACHING CREDITOR.--An assignment to an assignee duly appointed in the bankruptcy proceedings dissolves the lien of an attachment levied within four months prior to the filing of the petition. A debtor of the bankrupt who has, in ignorance of the appointment of the assignee, paid the amount of his indebtedness to the sheriff, under an execution in the attachment suit, is not thereby relieved from his liability to the assignee. N. Y. Sup. Ct., 1st Dept Duffield, assignee, vs. Horton, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 59.

BANK.

PAYMENT OF DEBTS DUE INSOLVENT BANK.-Under the laws of Pennsylvania, the assignee of an insolvent bank cannot accept in payment of debts dve the bank a protested draft drawn by such bank upon another bank, and sold by the payee to the debtor. Sup. Ct. Pennsylvanis. Baschore vs. Rhoads, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 72.

DISCHARGE.

SURETY ON GUARDIAN'S BOND.-A discharge, in bankruptcy releases the bankrupt from liability as surety on a guardian's bond. Illinois Sup. Ct. Keirz

vs. People, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 96.

Bench and Bar.

The following anecdotes of the late Sir George Rose, an English barrister of、 some prominence, were taken by the Solicitor's Journal from a biography of that gentleman, printed for private circulation:

"In the 'High Jinks' of the circuit Sir G. Rose was a ready and clever actor, and was accepted as such on the very first evening of his accession to the circuit bar mess.

.6

At one of the mock courts of justice a barrister was that evening tried for some presumed and absurd offense. Of course he was found guilty, and, before commuting his punishment for a dozen of claret he was solemnly condemned to death. Prisoner at the bar,' began the president of the mess, 'the sentence of the court is that you be taken back to the place from whence you came, and-Rose sprang to his feet from among the assembled junior counsel: 'Mercy, mercy, my lord!' he cried, he's a Scotchman!'

“His old friend, Mr. Becket, overtaking him one day in Chancery-lane, observed, I thought it was you, Sir George, walking so fast up to Southamp ton-buildings.'

666

"Ah! you knew the Rose by the stalk!"

"At the master's office one of his clerks came into his room, exceedingly angry at the loss of his overcoat, which he more than suspected had been stolen by an attorney's clerk who was in attendance upon some cause then

coming before Sir George, as master. 'Well, well, Hornidge,' remarked the inveterate joker, if the suit's defective, we can't proceed !'

"In reference to his portrait, now in the board-room of the Law Fire Office, I heard him say a good thing. It was in the time of a general election that, coming unexpectedly into the board-room, he found it in the hands of the cleaners, dismantled, and his portrait turned with face to the wall:-Though my canvas is neglected,' said he, 'I hope I shall be returned.'

66

When, some years ago, the practice of having daily prayer in our churches was still a novelty, Sir George's own clergyman called upon him and asked his opinion as to its adoption. Sir George replied: 'I see no objection whatever; but I hope that in my own particular case--service at the house will be deemed good service. Again, when a singularly matter-of-fact judge had related a story in which the listeners had failed after all their efforts to discover the faintest spark of humor, Sir George accounted for the circumstance at once. 'Don't you see?' he said; he has tried a joke, but reserved the point!

"The fertility of his fancy never failed him, even under the most unpromis ing and incongruous circumstances. When he was appointed one of the four judges of the (now extinct) Court of Review, he came to Lincoln's-inn, with his colleagues to be sworn in. Some friend congratulating him on his access of dignity, he observed, 'Yes! here we are, you see-four by honors.' In some case that was being heard before him in this Court it appeared that a picture of Elijah fed by the ravens' had been given as part of some security. He handed down a note to one of the counsel in the case: This is, so far as I am aware, the first instance on record of an accommodation bill!

"A friend meeting him one day in Lincoln's-inn-fields, with his left eye greatly swollen and inflamed, remonstrated with him, adding that he was surprized Lady Rose should have let him go out of doors in such a condition. 'Ah!' replied Sir George, I am out juré mariti (my right eye).

“Dining on one occasion with the late Lord Langdale, his host was speaking of the very diminutive church in Langdale, of which his lordship was patron. 'It is not bigger,' said Lord Langdale, 'than this dining-room,' 'No,' returned Sir George, and the living not half so good.'

“When one day some friends were dining with him, the out-door servants had been enlisted into the service of the dining-room, and it chanced that one of them, in carrying out a tray of glass, as he left the room stumbled and fell, with a heavy crash. What is that?' exclaimed Sir George's next neighbor, in great alarm. 'Oh, nothing,' he replied; only the coachman gone out with the break.'

·

"A friend who had been appointed to a judgeship in one of the colonies, was long afterward describing to Rose the agonies he had suffered on the voy age out from sea-sickness. Sir George listened with much interest to the reci tal of his friend's sufferings, and then said, in a tone of deep commiseration, 'It's a great mercy you did not throw up your appointment.'

"One of his friends at the board who had excellent teeth at nearly seventy years of age, was complimented on them by Sir George. My father was equally fortunate,' was the reply, 'and these are mine by inheritance!' 'And these,' said Sir George, tapping his set, are mine by purchase!'"

1.

2.

MAHONEY MINING COMPANY VS. SAMUEL BENNETT.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES-PROVISIONAL REMEDIES.-Where proceedings have been perfected for removing a cause from a Siate court to the Circuit Court of the United States under the Act of Congress of 1875 (18 Stat. 470), the Circuit Court, upon petition and notice to the adverse party, will grant leave to file a copy of the record in said court before the first day of the next succeeding term thereafter, for the purpose of administering without delay any of the provisional remedies to which the petitioning party may be entitled.

JURISDICTION AFTER REMOVAL.-The Circuit Court, upon such petition and notice, 'has jurisdiction to grant leave, to file the record before the day appointed by statute; and, after the filing of the record in pursuance of such leave, to proceed to grant any provisional relief to which the party may be entitled.

SAWYER, Circuit Judge:

On July 16, 1877, the complainant filed its bill in the State District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, among other things praying an injunction against the sale and working of the mine claimed by the complainant. At the same time it gave defendant notice of an application for a preliminary injunction. On August 6th the defendant gave notice of his appearance, and of a petition to remove the case to the United States Circuit Court on thǝ ground that the defendant is a citizen of Prussia, the complainant being a domestic corporation; which motion was granted on August 14th, before the application for a preliminary injunction had been heard by the court. The first day after the next succeeding term of the said Circuit Court would be the fourth Monday of November, nearly four months distant. The complainant thereupon immediately gave defendant notice of an application to the Circuit Court for leave to file a copy of the record of the case in said court; and that upon leave being granted it would apply for a preliminary injunction upon the same grounds as stated in the application for an injunction in the State Court before the making of the order of removal. The defendant objects to the hearing of the application for leave to file the copy of the record, sa well as the further motion for an injunction, on the ground that, under the statute, he has till the first day of the next term to file the record; and that, until that day, this Court can have no jurisdiction over the cause. It is true, as urged by defendant, that the statute makes no provision for filing the copy

of the record before the first day of the next succeeding term, or by any other person than the party removing the cause. But it is also true that there is nothing prohibiting the filing of the record at an earlier day, or by any party interested, other than the one removing the cause. Where a sufficient petition is filed in a proper case for removal, the State Court can take no further proceedings in the case without usurping jurisdiction (18 Stat. 471, § 3 ; Insurance Co. vs. Dunn, 19 Wal. 224). If, after completing the proceedings for a removal, so far as to deprive the State Court from taking any further action, there is no means by which the Circuit Court can get hold of the case till the first day of the next succeeding term, there will be a case pending, in some cases for many months, in which no court has jurisdiction to take any action whatever. An attachment may have been obtained, which ought to be dissolved, and which it would be ruinous to the defendant to continue; so an injunction, or the appointment of a receiver, may be imperatively required to protect the interest of the complainant pending the action, which no court has power to grant until too late for an injunction, or a preliminiary restraining order may be improperly granted, and the removal made before the injured party can be relieved. In case of a removal pending a motion for an injunction, or application for a receiver, a party might be obstructed in obtaining a provisional remedy to which he is entitled, at a ruinous sacrifice. He could not move in that case, because it is suspended between two courts, neither of which can act; and he could not even dismiss his action. and commence a new one in the national courts wherein the court would have jurisdiction, to afford him provisional relief, because, if neither court has authority to take action, it has no authority to enter an order of dismissal of the action once pending, until the statutory time for filing the copy of the record in the national courts has elapsed and the record filed. The injured party would, therefore, be remediless. If such be the law, causes will, doubtless, often be transferred for the purpose of accomplishing these results, thereby defeating the ends of justice. From the moment that the proceedings for removal are perfected, the Circuit Court, in my judgment, is in a position to take jurisdiction for the purposes indicated; and it only needs the record to enable it to proceed. Under sections 7 and 8 the court is expressly given authority to take the means prescribed to obtain the record, where the State Court, or its officers, refused to furnish a copy. For some purposes, at least, the Circuit Court may take action before the action is filed. The only obstacle to proceeding is the want of the record. After a careful consideration of the Act of Congress, I have reached the conclusion that, where the necessary proceedings have been taken in a proper case to remove a cause from a State to a national court, and the facts are made to appear in a petition filed in the Court to which the cause is removed, this forms a sufficient basis upon which such court has jurisdiction to act, after due notice to the adverse party, and upon which leave to file the record may be granted; and, after the record has been filed in pursuance of such leave, that the court has jurisdiction, in its discretion, to proceed and administer all provisional remedies applicable to the case. Any other construction would work intolerable inconvenience, and remediless injury to the rights of parties, and could not have been contemplated by Congress. It was intended to put