First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
Citations
- 198 U.S. 280
- 25 S. Ct. 693
- 49 L. Ed. 1051
- 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1103
Syllabus
<p>The trustee in bankruptcy claiming the right' of possession of certain merchandise of the bankrupt in storage, warehouse receipts for which he had hypothecated for loans, instituted summary proceedings for possession and directions for sale in the District Court. Claimants who were the warehousemen and holders of warehouse receipts objected to the jurisdiction but were overruled and thereafter the trustee and claimant stipulated for sale of the property and deposit of proceeds' subject to further order of the court. The District Court held that claimants were entitled to the property. Thé trustee appealed, and the claimants denied their right of appeal. The Circuit Court' of Appeals reviewed the facts and found the trustee entitled to possession. On certiorari held, that:</p> <p>As the proceeding was one in bankruptcy there was no appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and its jurisdiction was confined, under clause of § 24, to revision in matter of law on notice and petition.</p> <p>The provisions as to revision in matter of law and appeal must be construed in view of distinctions recognized in §§ 23, 24 and 25, between step3 . in bankruptcy proceedings proper and controversies arising out of the ' settlement of estates.</p> <p>The bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to determine adverse claims to property not in the possession of the assignee in bankruptcy by summary proceedings, whether absolute title or only a lien is asserted, and suits by a trustee may only be brought in courts where they might have been brought by the bankrupt.</p> <p>The fact that the claimants followed the case after their objections to the jurisdiction of the District Court had been overruled, did not amount to a waiver of the objections or consent to the jurisdiction of the court, and the sale of the merchandise by court did not, under the -circumstances of this case, change the situation or create a fund which conferred jurisdiction.</p> <p>The Circuit Court of Appeals had no jur
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[I]n any inquiry respecting the likely or probable intent of Congress, the silence of Congress is relevant; and here that silence is telling.”
- contest over title to property not administrative matter
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.