Adams v. Crittenden

Supreme Court of the United States February 3, 1890

Adams v. Crittenden, 133 U.S. 296 (1890)

10 S. Ct. 304; 33 L. Ed. 623; 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1910

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The regularity of the proceedings of the state court' is not challenged. They were all subsequent to the proceedings in the. bankrupt court, and were not' commenced until after the title had passed away from the assignee in bankruptcy. The general jurisdiction of the state court is conceded. The purchaser, the plaintiff in error, was a party to that suit, and the claim of the plaintiff in error can only be sustained upon the theory that by reason of the bankrupt proceedings the state" court was prevented from taking jurisdiction.

But the truth. is, the question is one of error and not of jurisdiction. The, state court had jurisdiction of the- parties, and they were served with process and-. appeared. It had jurisdiction of .the foreclosure of liens, and it had a right to hear and determine whether the alleged liens still -existed, and whether, there was any valid, defence to their enforcement. The property upon which the liens were -claimed was not in the possession of the bankrupt court, but only in the posses-sion of the party purchasing from it. So, whether • it erred in deciding that the lien holders had a claim upon the land rathei; than upon the. fund in the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy, is immaterial. It presented simply a matter of error. An error in its ruling did not oust it of jurisdiction.' r.Tke error, if error' it was, could be corrected only by appeal The failure of the party to exhaust his remedy in that direction .does not now entitle him to disregard’ the entire proceed *299 ing as without jurisdiction. Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450.

"We see no error in the ruling of the Circuit Court and its judgment is

Affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: A person in failing' circumstances convéyed away his equity of redemption in’mortgaged real estate, and then became bankrupt. His assignee in bankruptcy recovered the tract from the grantee in an action brought for that purpose, to which the mortgagee was not made party, and then ,con- . veyed it by deed to a purchaser. The mortgagee sued in the state court to foreclose his mortgage, making the bankrupt, his assignee, and the grantee of the assignee, parties; the land was sold under a decree of foreclosure; and the purchaser under it received a.deed and was put into possession. Thereupon the grantee of the assignee in bankruptcy brought ejectment against him to recover possession; Held, that the state court had jurisdiction' of the foreclosure suit, and had a right to hear and determine whether the mortgage debt was still a lien, and whether the mortgagee’s claim was upon the land .or upon the fund in the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy.