Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
BARTON v. GEILER, 1883 — 108 U.S. 161 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
BARTON v. GEILER
108 U.S. 16127 L. Ed. 687·Supreme Court of the United States·1883
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BARTON v. GEILER.
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.
Decided March 26th, 1883.
This case involves no law. On the facts the decree of the State court is-affirmed.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit in equity brought in a State court of, Tennessee by Barton, as assignee in bankruptcy of Kessler & Har-mon, to set aside a conveyance made by Kessler, one of tbe bankrupts, to Geiler, and the only question presented by the writ of error is, whether upon the testimony embodied in the record and considered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in the determination of the cause, it should have been found that the conveyance was in fraud, of the bankrupt law. The question is entirely one of fact. There can be no dispute about the law. It is sufficient to say that, after a careful examination of the testimony, we are satisfied with the conclusion finally reached below. It would serve no useful purpose to set forth in an'opinion the details of the evidence, of to enter into any discussion as to its effect.
The decree of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is affirmed.