A district court of the United States has jurisdiction, by the
proposed defendant's consent, but not otherwise, to entertain a
bill in equity by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover property
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
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was a bill in equity in the District Court of the United
States for the Southern District of Ohio by a trustee in bankruptcy
appointed by that court, against a creditor of the bankrupts, to
recover money to the amount of $2,780, paid by the bankrupts to the
defendant with intent to prefer the defendant and to defraud the
creditors of the bankrupts within four months before the
institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Both parties were
citizens of Ohio and residents of that district. The district court
dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. 94 F. 625. The
plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, which certified to this Court the following question:
"Has a district court of the United States jurisdiction to
entertain a bill in equity filed by a trustee in bankruptcy
appointed by it, against a fraudulent grantee or transferee of the
bankrupt resident in its district, to recover the property
Page 178 U. S. 542
belonging to the estate of the bankrupt, and by him fraudulently
conveyed to defendant?"
For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank,
decided, the answer to this question must be that the district
court has such jurisdiction by the consent of the proposed
defendant, but not otherwise.