Where a judgment creditor filed a bill in a state court to set
aside a conveyance made by a person who, during the pendency of the
action and years after its commencement, is adjudged a bankrupt,
and to apply the proceeds of the property affected towards the
payment of the debt, the state court acquires such complete
jurisdiction and control over the bankrupt and his property that
jurisdiction is not divested by proceedings in bankruptcy, and it
is the duty of the state court to proceed to final decree
notwithstanding the adjudication in bankruptcy, under the rule that
the court which first acquires rightful jurisdiction over the
subject matter should not be interfered with, and the district
court of the United States in which the bankruptcy proceedings are
pending has no jurisdiction to restrain the complainants in the
state court from executing their decree obtained in that court.
Nor does the mere fact that the complainant in such an action in
a state court proved up her judgment as a preferred debt in
bankruptcy "without waiving her preference" operate to deprive the
state court of jurisdiction or amount to a consent to the exercise
of jurisdiction by the district court to restrain her from
executing the judgment.
See also Metcalf Brothers & Co. v. Barker, decided
this term, p.
187 U. S. 165,
ante.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Page 187 U. S. 178
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the decree of the
District Court for the District of West Virginia dissolving an
injunction and dismissing a bill filed in that court by Dever
Pickens against Susan C. Dent and others. 106 F. 653.
The facts necessary to be considered in disposing of the case
were stated by the circuit court of appeals in substance as
follows: January 24, 1889, Susan C. Dent exhibited her bill in the
Circuit Court of Barbour County, West Virginia, against Dever
Pickens and others, to set aside as fraudulent a certain deed made
by Pickens to trustees, bearing date January 14, 1889, and
assailing as fraudulent certain indebtedness thereby secured. At
the succeeding September rules, an amended bill was filed alleging
that complainant Dent, on July 23, 1889, recovered a judgment at
law against Pickens for the sum of $10,000, with interest and
costs. Complainant prayed that the real estate mentioned in the
bill as the property of Pickens, and described in the trust deed,
might be sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of her
judgment and in satisfaction of the liens existing on the land. The
judgment was subsequently reversed, and a retrial resulted on
February 27, 1892, in a judgment for $9,000, with interest and
costs, and a second amended bill was filed so alleging.
The circuit court of appeals did not deem it essential to give a
history of the many years of "hard-fought and well contested
litigation" which followed, but stated that the case was pending
and undisposed of by the Circuit Court of Barbour County, October
30, 1899, when Pickens was adjudicated a bankrupt by the District
Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia on a
petition filed October 27. After the adjudication, and on November
2, 1899, Pickens filed an answer in the chancery cause in which he
set up the proceedings
Page 187 U. S. 179
in bankruptcy, asked that all further action in the state court
might be suspended until the district court had disposed of those
proceedings, and contended that all his estate, rights, and
interests of every kind and description had passed from the control
of the Circuit Court of Barbour County and into the jurisdiction of
the district court. On November 18, 1899, a trustee in bankruptcy
was appointed for Pickens' estate, who, in February, 1900,
presented to the Circuit Court of Barbour County his petition in
the chancery cause, asking that he be made a party, that his
petition stand as an answer, and that the circuit court proceed to
the enforcement of the liens against the bankrupt's estate, and
thereafter, on February 23, 1900, that court rendered a decree by
which, among other things, it was ordered that the deed of trust
referred to in the bill be set aside as fraudulent, and that a
special commissioner and receiver therein named should rent the
land described until a certain day, then sell the same, the
proceeds thereof to be applied to the payment of the debts due by
Pickens. November 20, 1899, complainant Dent, "without waiving her
preference," tendered her proof of debt before the referee in
bankruptcy, it being the judgment in question, which was allowed as
a preferred claim against the bankrupt's estate.
The receiver and commissioner appointed in the chancery court
was proceeding to execute the decree therein when Pickens filed his
bill in the district court March 31, 1900, against Dent and others,
rehearing that the facts relating to the suit and to the
proceedings in bankruptcy, charging that the trustee was not
authorized to intervene in the chancery cause and asserting that
the state court on the filing of Pickens' answer setting up his
adjudication should have taken no further action, and that
therefore the decree appointing the commissioner and receiver to
rent and sell the real estate was without authority of law, and
void.
The prayer was that defendants be restrained from all further
proceedings in the suit so pending in the Circuit Court of Barbour
County until the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings; that
the receiver and commissioner be enjoined from executing the decree
during their pendency, and that the possession
Page 187 U. S. 180
and control of the property be turned over to the trustee to be
administered under the direction of the court in bankruptcy.
A preliminary injunction was granted by the district judge,
which was dissolved July 26, 1900, and Pickens' bill dismissed with
costs. From that decree, this appeal was taken.
Such being the state of facts, the circuit court of appeals held
that the district court had no jurisdiction of the suit, even if it
had been brought in the name of the trustee, who could not have
sued defendants below in that court in respect of the bankrupt's
property unless by consent, while the bankrupt himself had no
standing in that court after adjudication,
Bardes v. Hawarden
Bank, 178 U. S. 524, and
further, that as the Circuit Court of Barbour County had at the
time of the adjudication, and had had for years, complete
jurisdiction and control over the bankrupt and his property, that
jurisdiction was not divested by the proceedings in bankruptcy, and
it was the right and duty of that court to proceed to final decree
notwithstanding adjudication, the rule being applicable that the
court which first obtains rightful jurisdiction over the subject
matter should not be interfered with.
Frazier v. Southern Loan
and Trust Company, 99 F. 707. And Goff, J., speaking for the
court, said:
"The Bankrupt Act of 1898 does not in the least modify this
rule, but, with unusual carefulness, guards it in all of its
details, provided the suit pending in the state court was
instituted more than four months before the district court of the
United States had adjudicated the bankruptcy of the party entitled
to or interested in the subject matter of such controversy."
The court also ruled that the mere fact that complainant Dent
proved up her judgment as a preferred debt in bankruptcy, when and
as she did, did not operate to deprive the state court of
jurisdiction nor amount to a consent to the exercise of
jurisdiction by the district court as invoked.
We are of opinion that the circuit court of appeals was right in
its rulings. The case in the one aspect came within
Bardes v.
Hawarden Bank, and in the other within the rule applied.
Metcalf v. Barker, ante, p.
187 U. S. 165.
Decree affirmed.