Latest Important Cases Bankruptcy. Ancillary jurisdiction of United States District Coruts—-Assignments Subsequent to Bankruptcy Proceedings. U. S. A Missouri corporation was adjudicated a bankrupt and a trustee was appointed in proceedings instituted in the District Court of the United States in and for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri.
Held, that the District Court of
the United States in and for the southern district of New York has jurisdiction of an application upon the trustee's petition for an order directing oificers of the corporation within the jurisdiction of the latter court to deliver to the trustee books and documents of the corporation there in their custody. This was the decision of the United States Supreme Court, Feb. 21, in Babbitt v. Dutcher,
30 Sup. Ct. 372. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, delivering the opinion of the court, said :
"Judge Holt, after expressing an opinion upholding ancillary jurisdiction, felt com pelled to decide otherwise in this case on the authority of In re Von Harts (142 Fed. Rep.,
726), decided by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It appears from the statement of the case in the opinion of the court in the matter of Van Harte that the proceeding was a summary application in which the appellant had been directed to turn over to the trustee in bank mptcy a policy of life insurance upon the life of the bankrupt. which "had theretofore been assigned by Von Hartz to appellant.” It was not stated in the opinion whether the assign ment was prior or subsequent to the proceed ings in bankruptcy. If prior thereto, then neither the court where the bankruptcy pro ceedings were pending nor any other court could grant a summary order disposing of the title of the adverse claimant claiming title to the policy by assignment. That could only be determined in a plenary suit, and would fall within the rule in the Bardes (178 U. S. 524) and jaquith (188 U. S. 620) cases. But
if the assignment was subsequent to the bankruptcy nullity and bankruptcy given to the
proceedings, then it would be a would be disregarded by the court and possession could be trustee by a summary order, as in
the Bryan (181 U. S. 188) and Mueller (184
U. S. 1) cases. "There is no decision of this court adverse to the ancillary jurisdiction of the District Courts as asked to be exercised in this case." Carriers. Obligation to Furnish Satisfactory Service—Constituti0nality of Kansas Statute Creating Railroad Commission. U. S. Upholding the constitutionality of the law creating the Railroad Commission of Kansas, the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 21, in Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission, 30 Sup. Ct. 330, upheld the Supreme Court of Kansas in issuing an in junction to compel the Missouri Pacific Rail way Company to operate separate passenger
trains instead of a mixed passenger and freight service from Madison, Kans.,to the Kansas Missouri state line. In this case the court announced a doctrine that will reach every state. It declared that even if this passenger train was operated at a loss the railroad was under a duty to perform such service as long as it retained its charter. The court refused to sustain the contention of the company that the revenues from the branch did not warrant separate service, and if the deficit in such a. service was to be met by business else where the property of the road would be confiscated, in violation of the Constitution. Corporations. See Partnership. Datamation. Privileged Communications Between Stockholders-Burden of Proof. N. Y. The New York Court of Appeals held that a telegram sent to one stockholder by another criticizing the manager of the company to be presumptively a privileged communication,
and the falsity of the statement or express malice must be proved. Only on the producr tion of facts sustaining this burden of proof does the case become one for the jury. Per Cullen, Ch. 1., in Ashcroft v. Hammond, 90
N. E. 1117. Fourteenth Amendment. Domestic Rela tions-Constitutionality of Statute Permitting Transfer of Children by a Father. S. C. The Supreme Court of South Carolina de cided on Feb. 17 that a statute permitting a father to transfer the care of his children with out the mother's consent was unconstitutional,
