Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U.S. 539 (1900). · Go Syfert
Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U.S. 539 (1900). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Thompson (ca3, 1922-09-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Thompson (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1922 · confidence medium
Ed. 1175 , Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U. S. 539 , 20 Sup. Ct. 1000, 44 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Thompson (2×)
W.D. Pa. · 1921 · confidence medium
Ed. 1175 , and Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U. S. 539 , 29 Sup. Ct. 1000, 44 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) De Friece v. Bryant
E.D. Ky. · 1916 · confidence medium
Ed. 1175 , Mitchell v. McClure, 178 U. S. 539 , 20 Sup. Ct. 1000, 44 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MITCHELL
v.
McCLURE
237.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 28, 1900.
178 U.S. 539
Mr. Thomas Patterson and Mr. 8. Duffield Mitchell for plaintiff in error., Mr. John 8. Ferguson for defendants in error.
Gray.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
Mr. J ustioe Gray

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of replevin in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by that court, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover a stock of goods, of the value of $2500, in the possession of the defendants, citizens of Pennsylvania and residents of that district, and alleged to have been conveyed to them by the bankrupt, within four months before the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, in fraud of the Bankrupt Act of 1898, and of the creditors of the bankrupt. The District Court, on motion of the defendant, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an action, and therefore ordered it to be abated. 91 Fed. Bep. 621. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court, and the District Judge certified that the question of jurisdiction was the sole question in issue.

For the reasons stated in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, just decided,

The.ffiidgmeni is affirmed.