Brown v. Smart
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEAÍS OP THE STATE OP MARYLAND. This was'a petition'to the court of common pleas of Baltimore City, for an adjudication of insolvency, and the setting aside of an unlawful preference, under the insolvent act of the State of Maryland, which enacts that any conveyance containing preferences (with exceptions not material to this case) by a merchant or trader, being insolvent, shall be unlawful and void, and shall be deemed an' act of insolvency, provided…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEAÍS OP THE STATE OP MARYLAND. This was'a petition'to the court of common pleas of Baltimore City, for an adjudication of insolvency, and the setting aside of an unlawful preference, under the insolvent act of the State of Maryland, which enacts that any conveyance containing preferences (with exceptions not material to this case) by a merchant or trader, being insolvent, shall be unlawful and void, and shall be deemed an' act of insolvency, provided a petition in.insolvency shall be filed by any creditor within four months afterwards; and that, upon such petition…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray
The principles which underlie this case are clearly estab-. lished by the decisions of this court. So long as there is no national bankrupt act, each State-has full authority to pass insolvent laws binding persons and-property within its jurisdiction, provided it does' not impair the obligation of existing contracts; but a State cannot by such á law discharge one of its. own citizens from Ms contracts with citizens of other. States, though' made after the passage of the law, unless they voluntarily become parties to-the proceedings in insolvency. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Ogden…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Baldwin v. HaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Hanover National Bank v. MoysesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- International Shoe Co. v. PinkusSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Ross v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Tidal Oil Co. v. FlanaganSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Butler v. GoreleySupreme Court of the United States · 1892
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.