Long v. Bullard

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 117 U.S. 617, 29 L. Ed. 1004, 6 S. Ct. 917, SCDB 1885-215, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1882

Decision Date: 4/12/1886

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617, 29 L. Ed. 1004, 6 S. Ct. 917, SCDB 1885-215, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1882 (1886)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1886


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 283 decisions
283
Citing decisions
3
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

1
2
5
1
75
69
35
67
28
1900s1910s1930s1940s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Bankr. N.D. Ga.11
7th Cir.10
Bankr. E.D.N.Y.8
Bankr. N.D. Ill.7
9th Cir. BAP6
B.A.P. 9th Cir.6
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026In Re Nelson D. Mass.
  • 2025Oriental Bank v. Díaz Pagán
  • 2025James Stacey Conley and Angela Marie Conley Bankr. S.D. Ala.
  • 2024Oriental Bank v. Diaz Pagan, Alvin Yamir
  • 2024Ortiz Pagan v. Planet Home Lending LLC D.P.R.
  • 2024Lamando v. Equifax Information Services, LLC N.D.N.Y.
  • 2023Merritt v. USAA Federal Savings Bank Wash.
  • 2023Kenneth Pettine v. Joli Lofstedt 10th Cir. BAP
  • 2023Mortgage Corporation of the South v. Judith Lacy Bozeman 11th Cir.
  • 2023DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC. v. Arnolds Bankr. E.D. Va.
Cites 3 cases
  • McHenry v. La Société Française D'Epargnes
  • Dudley v. Easton
  • Porter v. Lazear

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

LONG & WIFE v. BULLARD.

Attorneys

  • Mr. T. B. Gresham for plaintiffs in error.
  • Mr. Clifford Anderson for defendant in error.
majority Me. Chief Justice ’Waite,

After stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court..

It perhaps sufficiently appears that a determination of the question, as to the effect of the discharge in bankruptcy upon the right of Bullard to- enforce a lien upon the property in existence at the time of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, was necessarily: involved in the decision of the Supreme Court which-is here .under review, and that this decision was. adverse to the right set up by Long. This being the case, we have'jurisdiction, but there cannot be a doubt of the correctness of the decision. By § 5119' of the Revised Statutes the discharge releases the bankrupt only from debts’which were or .might have been "proved, and by § 50 Y5 debts secured by mortgage or pledge can only be proved for the balance remaining due after1 deducting the value of the security, unless all claim ’ upon the security is released. Here the creditor neither proved his,debt in bankruptcy nor released his lien. Consequently his security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of. his debtor. McHenry v. La Société Française, 95 U. S. 58; Dudley v. Easton, 104 U. S. 99, 103; Porter v. Lazear, 109 U. S. 84, 86. The dispute in the court below was as to the existence of the lien at the time of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy. That depended entirely on the. State laws, as to which the judgment of the State court is final and not subject to review here.

The setting apart of the homestead to the bankrupt under § 5045 of the Revised Statutes did not relieve the property from the óperatioii of liens created by contract before the bankruptcy. It is not the decree in this case which constitutes the lien on the property, but the conveyance of Long and wife before the bankruptcy.

The judgment is Affirmed.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.