US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Where the defendant pleaded his discharge under the Bankrupt Act of 1841, passed by Congress, and the plea was allowed, the plaintiff cannot bring the case to this Court to be reviewed under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary Act.

The defendant pleaded a privilege or exemption under a statute of the United States and the decision was in favor of it.

The case must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The case arose in this way.

Baldwin was a clerk in the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati. In 1844, the trustees of the bank brought an action of assumpsit against him for $10,000. Baldwin pleaded, amongst other matters, that he had received a discharge under the bankrupt law passed by Congress. The plaintiffs filed a replication, that the debt was contracted whilst Baldwin was acting in a fiduciary capacity, and therefore not discharged from the debt. The defendant demurred to this replication, which demurrer was sustained by the superior court, and also by the Supreme Court of Ohio on error.

The plaintiffs then brought the case to this Court under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.