Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/75

 44

THE GREEN BAG

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copie» of the pamphlet Reporters containing full report* of any of these decisions may be secured from the West PublichiBf Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 35 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well ae the citation of volume and pate of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

BANKRUPTCY. (Discharge of Debts Created in Fiduciary Capacity.) N. J. Ct. of Ch. — Whether a debt is created in fiduciary capacity so as to be affected by a discharge of the debtor in bankruptcy is a question frequently arising in bankruptcy cases. One of the recent decisions on this subject is Haggerty v. Babkin, 66 Atl. Rep. 420. Plaintiff's intestate and defendant had entered into an agreement to form a partner ship, plaintiff's intestate to put in $500 as capital and defendant to furnish the experience for the business. Almost immediately after the $500 was turned over to defendant and before the writ ten partnership agreement was signed, plaintiff's intestate fell sick and died. Subsequently de fendant went into bankruptcy and obtained a discharge, which he set up in bar to the claim of complainant. The court gives an elaborate dis cussion of what constitutes a fiduciary capacity under the bankruptcy law and cites numerous de cisions from text book writers. Money is said to be " received or detained by one from another in a fiduciary capacity when in the mind of the person handing the money to the other, as such mind is known to that other, it does not become the abso lute money and property of that other to do with as he chooses as his own money, but is received by him for a particular purpose in which a person or persons other than the person receiving it is or are interested." It was held in this case that the debt created was not discharged by the bank ruptcy proceedings. BANKRUPTCY. (Replevin.) Mass. — May replevin be maintained against a bankrupt after the adjudication to recover property belonging to a third person where nothing has been done to obtain possession under the bankruptcy proceed ings? This question was answered in the affirma tive in the case of Avers v. Farwell, 82 N. E. Rep. 35. The action was brought by vendors of goods purchased by the bankrupts; plaintiffs claiming that defendants entered into the contract with the fraudulent intention of obtaining the goods with out paying for them. While recovery was denied in this instance on the ground that no fraud was

shown, the court ruled that the simple fact of adjudication in bankruptcy would not bar the action where nothing had yet been done by the trustee or any one acting under authority of the Federal Court toward obtaining custody of the property. When a Court, State or Federal, has once taken into its jurisdiction property, no Court except one having supervisory control has a right to interfere with or change such possession. Therefore, if the trustee in Bankruptcy once has taken into his pos session property, no creditor may maintain an action of replevin -in a State Court to recover such property except with the consent of the Bankruptcy Court. This was laid down in a well considered case by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Crosby v. Spear, 98 Me. 542, although, previously, the opposite doctrine was laid down by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Cook v. Scovel, 68 N. J. L. 484. In this case the Court sustained the Jurisdiction of a State Court in an action of replevin against a trustee in bankruptcy who had the goods in his possession. There are sev eral decisions in the United States Courts in agreement with the Maine decision. See: Re Russell & Birkett, 101 Fed. 248; Matter of Grissler 136 Fed. 754; White v. C. H. Loerb, 178 U. S. 542If the trustee in bankruptcy, however, upon de mand of an adverse claim, refuses to deliver property in his possession to such claimant the claimant may sue the trustee in bankruptcy in an action of trover in a State Court to recover the value of the property converted. In Re Kanter & Cohen, 121 Fed. 984. In Re Spitzer, 130 Fed. 879. In Re Merten, 147 Fed. 182. Lee M. Friedman CARRIERS. (Validity of Conditions in Passen ger Tickets.) U. S. Cir. Ct. E. D. of Va. — The provision of the Interstate Commerce Law requir ing publication by carriers of schedules of rates and statements of " all privileges or facilities granted or allowed " was considered by Judge Waddill in the case of B. & O. R. Co. v. Hamburger, 155 Fed. Rep. 849, with reference to its application to re strictions in tickets making them non-transferable. Bills in equity were brought by plaintiff railroad