TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Adams v. Crittenden

Adams v. Crittenden, 133 U.S. 296 (1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 3, 1890
Docket
No. 952
Judges
Brewer
Citations
133 U.S. 29610 S. Ct. 30433 L. Ed. 6231890 U.S. LEXIS 1910
Syllabus
A person in failing' circumstances convéyed away his equity of redemption in’mortgaged real estate, and then became bankrupt. His assignee in bankruptcy recovered the tract from the grantee in an action brought for that purpose, to which the mortgagee was not made party, and then ,con- . veyed it by deed to a purchaser. The mortgagee sued in the state court to foreclose his mortgage, making the bankrupt, his assignee, and the grantee of the assignee, parties; the land was sold under a decree of foreclosure; and the purchaser under it received a.deed and was put into possession. Thereupon the grantee of the assignee in bankruptcy brought ejectment against him to recover possession; Held, that the state court had jurisdiction' of the foreclosure suit, and had a right to hear and determine whether the mortgage debt was still a lien, and whether the mortgagee’s claim was upon the land .or upon the fund in the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy.
Summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. This was an action of ejectment, and was submitted to. the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts, which appears in the record. The contest was between a purchaser from an assignee in bankruptcy and a purchaser at subsequent foreclosure proceedings in a state ■ court. The land was encumbered with liens at the time the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced. The title was not in the bankrupt, nor was the property surrendered by him to the assignee. Subsequently, however, the assignee sued the party in who.se name the title stood and recovered the land. Thereafter, it was sold by the assignee, and the plaintiff in error became the purchaser. Such sale was for one-third cash, the balance on time, a lien being retained _for the deferred payments. Upon this sale a deed was made; and the purchaser put in possession. The lien holders were not made parties to any proceedings in the bankrupt court. They never proved their claims there. After the conveyance ■ by the assignee to the plaintiff in error, these lien owners commenced proceedings in the chancery court of the State to foreclose their liens, making the bankrupt, thejassignee in bankruptcy, and the purchaser, among others, parties defendant. The assignee and the purchaser defended on the ground that the state court had no jurisdiction to ascertain and enforce, liens upon property of a bankrupt which had passed into the jurisdiction of the bankrupt court and by it been disposed of; but this defence was overruled, the liens declared and the land ordered to be sold. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the State, but it affirmed the decree. Pending the proceedings in the state chancery court, a bill was filed in the United States Circuit Court to. enjoin those proceedings, but after hearing that bill was dismissed. After the affirmance by the Supreme Court of the decree of the chancery court, the land was sold, and the defendants in error became the purchasers. Upon such purchase they received the ordinary deed and .were put in possession. Thereupon this action of ejectment was brought.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Brewer

Mr. Justice Brewer, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The regularity of the proceedings of the state court' is not challenged. They were all subsequent to the proceedings in the. bankrupt court, and were not' commenced until after the title had passed away from the assignee in bankruptcy. The general jurisdiction of the state court is conceded. The purchaser, the plaintiff in error, was a party to that suit, and the claim of the plaintiff in error can only be sustained upon the theory that by reason of the bankrupt proceedings the state" court was prevented from taking jurisdiction.

But the truth. is, the question is one of error and not of jurisdiction. The, state court had jurisdiction of the- parties, and they were served with process and-. appeared. It had jurisdiction of .the foreclosure of liens, and it had a right to hear and determine whether the alleged liens still -existed, and whether, there was any valid, defence to their enforcement. The property upon which the liens were -claimed was not in the possession of the bankrupt court, but only in the posses-sion of the party purchasing from it. So, whether • it erred in deciding that the lien holders had a claim upon the land rathei; than upon the. fund in the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy, is immaterial. It presented simply a matter of error. An error in its ruling did not oust it of jurisdiction.' r.Tke error, if error' it was, could be corrected only by appeal The failure of the party to exhaust his remedy in that direction .does not now entitle him to disregard’ the entire proceed *299 ing as without jurisdiction.

Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450 .

"We see no error in the ruling of the Circuit Court and its judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1892: 11907: 11934: 11977: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Foster v. Christensen67 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1934)
  2. Johnson & Johnson v. Herold161 F. 593 (D.N.J. 1907)
  3. Ludeling v. Chaffe143 U.S. 301 (1892)
  4. Sims v. Tinney482 F. Supp. 794 (D.S.C. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Sims v. Tinney482 F. Supp. 794 (D.S.C. 1977)
  2. Foster v. Christensen67 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1934)
  3. Johnson & Johnson v. Herold161 F. 593 (D.N.J. 1907)
  4. Ludeling v. Chaffe143 U.S. 301 (1892)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Winchester v. Heiskell & Others, 119 U.S. 450 (1886) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list