Hoover v. Robinson
Hoover v. Robinson
Opinion of the Court
The question raised in the present case is whether the assignee of a bankrupt under the United States bankrupt law of 1867, can maintain an action in the state courts of Nebraska, in his own name as such assignee for property which he claims belongs to the estate of the bankrupt, on the state of facts set forth in the record presented to this court. Chancellor Kent says, “ state courts may in the exercise of their ordinary, original and rightful jurisdiction, incidentally take cognizance of cases arising under the constitution, the laws and treaties of the United States.” 1 Kent Com. 397. Congress does not confer jurisdiction upon the state courts, but creates a legal right in the assignee in bankruptcy to recover the property of the bankrupt. The jurisdiction is the ordinary jurisdiction of state feourts acting upon legal rights which have been created by Congress. The law of Congress affects the rights and imposes obligations upon the parties litigant. These rights may be enforced by the state courts in the ordinary exercise of their jurisdiction. They enforce a legal right or compel the performance of a legal obligation. This is but the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon the state courts by the laws creating them. The state courts are to give force and effect to the laws of Congress as the supreme law of the land. This bankrupt law is the law of Nebraska as much as any statute enacted by our own legislature, deriving its vitality from another source but of equal authority. The
Mitchell v. Great Works Milling and Manufucturing Co., 2 Story R. 655. Ward v. Jenkins, 10 Metcalf, 583. 14 U. S. Statutes at Large, 517.
We think there was error in the court below in finding that it had no jurisdiction,' and its judgment is reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and Remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William H. Hoover, assignee, etc., in error v. Luther D. Robinson, in error
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published