Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Statement of the Case.

compel the payment of alimony to the petitioner by defendant, or to refuse to allow alimony." 6 Dickinson (54 N. J. Eq.) 473. On appeal this order was affirmed by the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals. 10 Dickinson (55 N. J. Eq.) 591. Thereupon an order of reference, based on all prior proceedings, and on notice to the solicitor for the defendant, was made by the Court of Chancery to a master to find the amount of alimony, if any, due to the plaintiff. Neither the defendant nor his solicitor appeared at the hearing before the master; and on December 28, 1897, the Court of Chancery, confirming the master's report, made the decree now sued on.

That court, on its being made to appear that a certified copy of this decree was personally served on the defendant, and that he refused to comply with said decree, ordered that a receiver be appointed to take possession of all the defendant's real and personal property in New Jersey to apply it to the payment of the plaintiff's claim. The receiver, however, was "unable to obtain possession of any property or assets of said defendant in the State of New Jersey;" nor had the defendant "complied with said decree in any respect."

The Supreme Court of New York decreed that the plaintiff was "entitled to a judgment against the defendant, enforcing against said defendant the decree of the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, dated December 28, 1897," and the order appointing a receiver, and enjoining the defendant from transferring his property; also that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment that the defendant pay her $8976.07, "being alimony, counsel fee and costs, due under said decree," and interest thereon from its date; also the "sum of $4400, being the amount of weekly alimony which has accrued since said decree in accordance with the terms thereof," and interest thereon; also $80 a week from the date of this decision "as and for permanent alimony," bearing interest until paid; that he give bond "in the sum of $100,000 to secure payment of the several sums of money aforesaid;" and that, if the defendant fail to comply with this decision, "a receiver be appointed, ancillary to the receiver heretofore appointed by the Court of Chancery of New Jersey

Opinion of the Court.

as aforesaid, of the real and personal property of the defendant within the State of New York."

On appeal by the defendant to the Appellate Division, the decree was modified so as to allow the plaintiff to recover only $8840 alimony, the amount declared by the New Jersey court as due and payable at the date of its decree. Thus modified, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. 41 N. Y. App. Div. 280.

From the judgment of the Appellate Division both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judg ment of the Appellate Division. 162 N. Y. 405. Each party sued out a writ of error from this court.

Mr. George S. Ingraham for Charles W. Lynde.

Mr. James Westervelt and Mr. Matthew C. Fleming for Mary W. Lynde.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The husband, as the record shows, having appeared generally in answer to the petition for alimony in the Court of Chancery in New Jersey, the decree of that court for alimony was binding upon him. Laing v. Rigney, 160 U. S. 531. The court of New York having so ruled, thereby deciding in favor of the full faith and credit claimed for that decree under the Constitution and laws of the United States, its judgment on that question cannot be reviewed by this court on writ of error. Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 496. The husband having appeared and been heard in the proceeding for alimony, there is no color for his present contention that he was deprived of his property without due process of law. Nor does he appear to have made any such contention in the courts of the State. His writ of error, therefore, must be dismissed.

By the Constitution and the act of Congress, requiring the faith and credit to be given to a judgment of the court of an

Opinion of the Court.

other State that it has in the State where it was rendered, it was long ago declared by this court: "The judgment is made a debt of record, not examinable upon its merits; but it does not carry with it, into another State, the efficacy of a judgment upon property or persons, to be enforced by execution. To give it the force of a judgment in another State, it must be made a judgment there; and can only be executed in the latter as its laws may permit." McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 325; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, 463; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265, 292; Bullock v. Bullock, 6 Dickinson (51 N. J. Eq.) 444, and 7 Dickinson (52 N. J. Eq.) 561.

The decree of the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, on which this suit is brought, provides, first, for the payment of $7840 for alimony already due, and $1000 counsel fee; second, for the payment of alimony since the date of the decree at the rate of $80 per week; and third, for the giving of a bond to secure the payment of these sums, and, on default of payment or of giving bond, for leave to apply for a writ of sequestration, or a receiver and injunction.

The decree for the payment of $8840 was for a fixed sum already due, and the judgment of the court below was properly restricted to that. The provision of the payment for alimony in the future was subject to the discretion of the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, which might at any time alter it, and was not a final judgment for a fixed sum. The provisions for bond, sequestration, receiver and injunction, being in the nature of execution, and not of judgment, could have no extraterritorial operation; but the action of the courts of New York in these respects depended on the local statutes and practice of the State, and involved no Federal question.

On the writ of error of the wife, therefore,

The judgment is affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

BRYAN v. BERNHEIMER.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIR

CUIT.

No. 58. Submitted October 31, 1900.-Decided April 15, 1901.

A bankrupt, nine days before the filing of a petition in bankruptcy against him, made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors which was an act of bankruptcy. After the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the assignee sold the property. After the adjudication in bankruptcy, and before the appointment of a trustee, the petitioning creditors applied to the District Court for an order to the marshal to take possession of the property, alleging that this was necessary for the interest of the bankrupt's creditors. The court ordered that the marshal take possession, and that notice be given to the purchaser to appear in ten days and propound his claim to the property, or, failing to do so, be decreed to have no right in it. The purchaser came in, and propounded a claim, stating that he bought the property for cash in good faith of the assignee, submitted his claim to the court, asked for such orders as might be necessary for his protection, and prayed that the creditors be remitted to their claim against the assignee for the price, or the price be ordered to be paid by the assignee into court and paid over to the purchaser, who thereupon offered to rescind the purchase and waive all further claim to the property. Held, that the purchaser had no title in the property superior to the bankrupt's estate, and that the equities between him and the creditors should be determined by the District Court, bringing in the assignee if necessary.

THIS was a summary petition to the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting in bankruptcy, for an order to Bryan, the marshal of the District, to take immediate possession of property of David Abraham, a bankrupt, in the hands of Louis Bernheimer. The material facts, as appearing by the record, were as follows:

On October 29, 1898, Abraham made a general assignment of all his property, consisting of his stock of goods and book accounts, in a storehouse numbered 106 Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama, for the equal benefit of all his creditors, to one H. C. Davidson, who had the assignment recorded, and caused to be filed an inventory, and an appraisement of the

Statement of the Case.

property at the sum of $7900, in a court of Alabama, according to the laws of the State, (Civil Code of Alabama of 1896, c. 113,) and forthwith took possession of the property.

On November 7, 1898, certain creditors of Abraham filed in the District Court of the United States, sitting in bankruptcy, a petition alleging that said assignment was an act of bankruptcy, and praying that he might be adjudged a bankrupt.

On December 12, 1898, Abraham, after due notice to him, was adjudged a bankrupt. On the same day, the petitioning creditors presented to the District Court a petition, alleging the assignment to Davidson, and the adjudication in bankruptcy, and that upon the filing of the petition for that adjudication the court obtained jurisdiction over Abraham's estate, and it was the duty of Davidson, as his assignee, to hold all his property subject to the orders of the court; but that Davidson, disregarding the authority and jurisdiction of the court, had sold and disposed of the property at much less than the aforesaid appraisement, and the purchasers had been in possession of the property for several days, selling and disposing thereof at retail and at bankrupt prices; and that, unless the court made an order requiring the property to be taken immediate possession of, the petitioners and all other creditors of Abraham would be greatly damaged, and their dividends out of the estate greatly lessened; and praying for an order to the marshal of the District to take possession of, and to hold until further order of the court, all the property owned by Abraham at the time of his assignment to Davidson, wherever the same might be found, and all property sold by Davidson to Louis Bernheimer or to any one else, and being in the storehouse numbered 106 Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, and to hold it until the further order of the court. On the filing of this petition, the District Court made the order therein prayed for, reciting" it further appearing from said petition that it is necessary to the interest of the creditors of the said Abraham that this court take possession of all the property and effects of said Abraham." And on the same day the marshal, pursuant to that order, seized the stock of goods in Bernheimer's possession.

On December 13, 1898, the District Court, on a petition of

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »