Mayer v. White
Annotate this Case
65 U.S. 317 (1860)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Mayer v. White, 65 U.S. 24 How. 317 317 (1860)
Mayer v. White
65 U.S. (24 How.) 317
Another branch of the cases arising under the Mexican company of Baltimore, formed in 1816.
This Court decided, in 58 U. S. 17 How. 274, that the interest in one of these shares did not pass to a trustee in insolvency in 1819, the contract with Mina having been declared by the Court of Appeals of Maryland to be utterly null and void, so that no interest could pass to the trustee of an in solvent.
But in 1824, Mexico assumed the debt as one of national obligation, and the United States made it the subject of negotiation until it was finally paid.
A second insolvency having taken place in 1829, there was a right of property in the insolvent which was capable of passing to his trustee.
The claim of the latter is therefore better than that of the administrator of the insolvent.
This was a branch of the cases relating to the shares of the Mexican Company of Baltimore, so often reported in the preceding volumes of Howard and which are referred to in the opinion of the Court. The opinion contains also a statement of the facts in the present case.
The bill was originally filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (state court) by Charles F. Mayer and John Barney, trustees of John Gooding, under his insolvency in 1829, against John Gooding, Jun., Charles Oliver, and Robert M. Gibbes. It was removed into the circuit court of the United States, upon the application of John Gooding, junior, who alleged that he was a citizen of Virginia. An answer was filed by Gooding, who afterwards died, and White became administrator de bonis non of the first John Gooding. A bill of revision was filed and other proceedings took place, amongst which was a suggestion of the death of John Barney, so that Mayer became the surviving trustee. Gibbes and Oliver answered, and in May, 1858, Judge Giles, then holdings a circuit court, dismissed the bill, from which order Mayer appealed to this Court.
It is proper to mention that when the mandate of this Court,
in the case of Gooding, 17 How. 274, went down, the executors of Oliver paid into court the money and stocks sued for, and afterwards, in pursuance of an order of the court, passed on the 28th June, 1858 (after the dismissal of the bill, as above mentioned), the same stocks and money were paid out of court to White. It was agreed by the counsel that the claim of Mayer was exclusively against White as administrator.