Where the defendant pleaded his discharge under the Bankrupt Act
of 1841, passed by Congress, and the plea was allowed, the
plaintiff cannot bring the case to this Court to be reviewed under
the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary Act.
The defendant pleaded a privilege or exemption under a statute
of the United States and the decision was in favor of it.
The case must therefore be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
The case arose in this way.
Baldwin was a clerk in the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati. In
1844, the trustees of the bank brought an action of assumpsit
against him for $10,000. Baldwin pleaded, amongst other matters,
that he had received a discharge under the bankrupt law passed by
Congress. The plaintiffs filed a replication, that the debt was
contracted whilst Baldwin was acting in a fiduciary capacity, and
therefore not discharged from the debt. The defendant demurred to
this replication, which demurrer was sustained by the superior
court, and also by the Supreme Court of Ohio on error.
The plaintiffs then brought the case to this Court under the
twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.
MR. JUSTICE GRIER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is brought here by a writ of error to the Supreme
Court of Ohio.
As the power of this Court to review the decisions of state
tribunals is limited to certain specified cases and conditions,
the
Page 50 U. S. 262
first inquiry which necessarily presents itself is whether we
have jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs in error instituted this suit in the Superior
Court of Cincinnati. The declaration has the common counts in
assumpsit. The defendant appeared and pleaded his discharge under
the Act of Congress of 19 August, 1841, to "establish a uniform
system of bankruptcy &c." The plaintiffs denied the validity of
this discharge, on the ground that the debt was incurred by
defendant while acting as clerk or bookkeeper in the Commercial
Bank, and therefore "acting in a fiduciary capacity."
The Supreme Court of Ohio gave judgment for the defendant, and
the plaintiffs prosecuted their writ of error to this Court.
The twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, which is the only
source of our authority in cases like the present, gives this Court
jurisdiction to "reexamine" the judgment of a state court only
where the decision "is against the title, right, privilege, or
exemption specially set up or claimed" under an act of
Congress.
The plaintiffs in this case have set up act of Congress in their
pleadings, under which they support their claim or title to
recover. It is the defendant who has pleaded a privilege or
exemption under a statute of the United States, and relies upon it
as his only defense. If the decision of the state court had been
against him, his right to have his case reexamined by this Court
could not be doubted. But the decision has been in favor of the
right set up under the statute, the validity of which was denied by
the plaintiffs. We have no jurisdiction to entertain a writ of
error to the Supreme Court of Ohio at their suggestion.
This case must therefore be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio within and for the
County of Hamilton, and was argued by counsel. On consideration
whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that this
cause be, and the same is hereby dismissed for the want of
jurisdiction.