Wood v. Wilbert,
226 U.S. 384 (1912)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Wood v. Wilbert, 226 U.S. 384 (1912)

Wood v. Wilbert

No. 61

Argued December 5, 1912

Decided December 23, 1912

226 U.S. 384


Where defendant files a formal appearance and simultaneously files an exception to the jurisdiction, the two papers should be considered together, and as such cannot be regarded as a consent to submit to the jurisdiction in a case where consent is necessary.

An objection that the exception and demurrer did not comply with Rule 31 owing to failure to make affidavit that they were not interposed for delay, if not raised in the court below or assigned as error, cannot be raised in this Court.

The district court has not jurisdiction in behalf of the trustee in bankruptcy to recover assets of the bankrupt from a third person under a revocatory action allowed under the law of Louisiana, of an insolvent, without the consent of the defendant, under the Bankruptcy Act as amended by the Act of February 5, 1903, c. 487, § 8, 32 Stat. 797.

This Court will assume that all the amendments to different parts of the same act of Congress passed at the same time were intended not to conflict, but to be in accord as provisions for different situations.

The facts, which involve the construction of §§ 23a and 23b of the Bankruptcy Act and the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States thereunder, are stated in the opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.