Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/178/539/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/178/539/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U.S. 539 (1900)
Mitchell v. McClure
No. 237
Submitted April 12, 1900
Decided May 28, 1900
178 U.S. 539
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Syllabus
A district court of the United States has no jurisdiction, without the proposed defendant's consent, to entertain an action of replevin by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover goods conveyed to the defendant by the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act and of his creditors. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 178 U. S. 524, followed.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an action of replevin in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover a stock of goods, of the value of $2,500, in the possession of the defendants, citizens of Pennsylvania and residents of that district, and alleged to have been conveyed to them by the bankrupt, within four months before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy in fraud of the Bankrupt Act of 1898 and of the creditors of the bankrupt. The district court, on motion of the defendant, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an action, and therefore ordered it to be abated. 91 F.6d 1. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this Court, and the district judge certified that the question of jurisdiction was the sole question in issue.
For the reason stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 178 U. S. 524, just decided,
The judgment is affirmed.
