Pell v. McCabe
250 U.S. 573 (1919)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Pell v. McCabe, 250 U.S. 573 (1919)

Pell v. McCabe

No. 311, 335

Argued October 16, 1919

Decided November 10, 1919

250 U.S. 573

Syllabus

One who has not been subjected to the jurisdiction in an action in personam in another state cannot maintain a bill to enjoin its prosecution. P. 250 U. S. 574.

A firm of bankrupts having offered a composition conditioned, among other things, that one T, who claimed to be a special partner only, should be released from liability to the firm or to any of its creditors assenting to the composition upon giving up a scheduled claim and assuming certain obligations for which securities of his were pledged, T, in an agreement with the receivers, accepted the composition and agreed to pay the obligations upon return of the securities, the equities in which he agreed to hold for the estate in case he should be adjudged a general partner. The district court, having approved this agreement, later, in confirming the composition, relieved T, upon performance, from further liability to the receivers or the estate under the prior order "or otherwise," and dismissed pending petitions to have him declared a general partner and adjudged a bankrupt.

Held:

(1) That the decree did not estop persons who, though they had paid a claim and disputed another, did not appear in the bankruptcy proceedings, assent to the composition, or prove a claim, from prosecuting an action against T in a court of another state seeking to hold him as a general partner of the bankrupts for an after-discovered fraud;

(2) that the district court had no jurisdiction, ancillary to the bankruptcy decree, to enjoin such action. P. 250 U. S. 576.

Page 250 U. S. 574

The scope of a decree set up as a basis for ancillary jurisdiction cannot be affected by an admission by demurrer. P. 250 U. S. 577.

256 F. 512 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.