residence permanently, or for an indefinite time. If he has, he loses his old domicile, and acquires a new one with all its rights and incidents; and the law does not inquire into the purposes or motives which induced him to make such change. It may be because he prefers the laws of the new place of domicile, or because he can diminish his taxes and other burdens, or because he desires to bring a suit in a court which would not otherwise have jurisdiction. Thayer v. Boston, 124 Mass. 132; Case v. Clark, 5 Mason, 70. His status as an inhabitant depends upon the fact that he has made a change of his home, and not upon the motives or reasons which influenced him to do so.

In the case at bar, therefore, it being found as a fact that the respondent Kelley had become a resident of this State, he had the right to apply for the benefit of the insolvent laws, although his sole purpose in making the change of his domicile was to enable himself to do so.

It also appeared at the hearing, that most of the debts due by Kelley, though due largely to residents of Massachusetts, were contracted while he was an inhabitant of New Hampshire; and that after he removed to Massachusetts, and before he filed his petition in insolvency, he contracted debts in this State of between $200 and $300, for the purpose of owing debts contracted in Massachusetts, and thus enabling himself to commence proceedings in Massachusetts;" and the plaintiffs contend that this ousts the jurisdiction of the court of insolvency.

The jurisdiction of the court depends upon the facts, that the applicant is an inhabitant of the State, and owes some debts contracted while such inhabitant. Pub. Sts. c. 157, § 16; Breed v. Lyman, 4 Allen, 170. These facts being proved, the jurisdiction attaches, and we do not think the judge of insolvency can inquire into the circumstances under which the debts were contracted, or the motives and purposes of the applicant in contracting them. Nor can he inquire. whether the debts which are the basis of his jurisdiction are debts which will be barred by the discharge. He has no jurisdiction to make such inquiry. He can only inquire whether there are bona fide debts. contracted while the applicant was an inhabitant of the State. The facts in this case show that there were such debts. plicant had any improper purpose in contracting them, the creditors. were not participants in it. Their debts are just and bona fide debts, which are provable under the insolvency proceedings; and we are of opinion that the court of insolvency had jurisdiction to issue the warrant, although the insolvent debtor contracted them for the purpose of putting himself in a position which enabled him to take the benefit of the insolvent law. Bill dismissed.1

If the ap

1 The rule in regard to giving a federal court jurisdiction of a cause by change of citizenship is the same. In Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 328, Harlan, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said: “It is true, as contended by the defendant, that a citizen of the United States can instantly transfer his citizenship from one State to another, Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 546, 554, and that his right to sue in the courts of the United States is none the less because his change of domicile was induced by the purpose, whether avowed or not, of invoking, for the protection of his

SECTION II.

INFANTS AND MARRIED WOMEN.

IN RE BRICE.

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF IOWA, MAY 4, 1899.

[Reported in 93 Federal Reporter, 942.]

WOOLSON, District Judge. Carl S. Brice having filed his petition in voluntary bankruptcy, the petition was regularly referred to George W. Seevers, Esq., as referee in bankruptcy. Upon April 3, 1899, said referee formally adjudicated said Brice to be a bankrupt, and duly gave notice for first meeting of creditors. Shortly prior to the day fixed for said first meeting, Wyman, Partridge & Co., claiming to be creditors of said Brice, presented to the judge of this court their petition, wherein they sought vacation of said adjudication. The grounds on which such vacation was sought were, in substance, that at date of such adjudication said Brice was "a minor, and under the age of twenty-one years, and not a person' within the intent of the bankruptcy statute," and therefore not entitled to the benefits of said statute; that such fact was not disclosed by the petition filed by him, nor upon said adjudication. An amendment to such petition for vacation alleges as further ground that this court has not jurisdiction to entertain said Brice's petition, because said Brice, up to the filing of his petition, continuously had his domicile and residence and principal place of business within the Northern District of this State. To this petition for vacation of order of adjudication Brice files his answer, admitting that he is under twenty-one years of age, but averring that when he was nineteen years old he was manumitted by his father, and that for more than six months before the filing of his said petition in bankruptcy, and at the date of such filing, he was openly engaged in business as a merchant in Mahaska County, in this district.

Counsel for said Brice, for said petitioning creditors, as well as for other creditors, have been heard orally and by briefs. Upon the hearrights, the jurisdiction of a federal court. As said by Mr. Justice Story, in Briggs v. French, 2 Sumner, 251, 256, if the new citizenship is really and truly acquired, his right to sue is a legitimate, constitutional, and legal consequence, not to be impeached by the motive of his removal.' Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121, 125; Jones v. League, 18 How. 76, 81. There must be an actual, not pretended, change of domicile; in other words, the removal must be a real one, animo manendi, and not merely ostensible.' Case . Clark, 5 Mason, 70. The intention and the act must concur in order to effect such a change of domicile as constitutes a change of citizenship."

93

ing said Brice was examined under oath. The following facts appear: In January, 1898, the father of said Brice executed an instrument, which follows the general form and contains the substance of what is generally accepted as a manumission paper. It was conceded on the hearing that such paper is amply sufficient, as between father and son, to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. This paper was published in one of the principal newspapers where the father and son resided. Since said date of manumission, and up to the filing of his petition herein, said C. S. Brice was employed in his father's store in Tama County, Iowa, as a clerk, upon a monthly salary. Said Brice also opened up, in Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa, a store, for general merchandise purposes, and had maintained the same for over six months prior to filing of his said bankruptcy petition. He was very seldom at his Oskaloosa store, and in fact took no leading part in the management or details of business therein. His brother-in-law, one Barber, was in charge as manager, made the purchases of goods, made whatever payments thereon were made, engaged those employed in said store, and attended to obtaining the lease of the store premises; but the lease was taken in the name of said Brice, and all purchases were also made in said Brice's name. There is presented herein no claim that any fraud was perpetrated or attempted in the matters named. All the creditors dealt with said store as being the property of said Brice. The debts scheduled in the petition for bankruptcy aggregate $24.608.10. The stock of goods are scheduled at an

aggregate of $12,350.

First, as to jurisdiction: Without determining, but assuming, that this point is here properly presented, I find the facts proven sustain such jurisdiction in this court. Although Brice unquestionably had his domicile and residence without this district, yet his business without the district was that of a mere clerk; within this district, and for the entire period of six months prior to filing his petition, he was carrying on the business of a merchant upon such a scale as that his scheduled debts for merchandise and store expenses aggregated at filing of petition over $20,000. Whether he might have filed his petition in the district of his residence is not the question here to be decided. The statute (30 Stat. 545, c. 541, § 2, par. 1) confers upon this court, as a court of bankruptcy, jurisdiction" to adjudge persons bankrupt who have had their principal place of business, resided, or had their domicile within its territorial jurisdiction for the preceding six months, or the greater portion thereof." Brice has elected to file his petition in bankruptcy in the district of his principal place of business. If he is a "person" within the meaning of the statute, this court has jurisdiction. I do not deem it necessary to here determine the question presented by counsel for Brice that the plea of minority is a plea personal to the bankrupt in this proceeding, but will assume, for the purpose of this hearing, that a creditor may properly present it. Section 4, par. b, of the present bankruptcy statute provides that

66 any person, except a corporation, shall be entitled to the benefits of this act as a voluntary bankrupt." By section 1, cl. 19, it is provided that the word "persons' shall include corporations, except where otherwise provided, and officers, partnerships, and women." No part of this statute appears expressly to provide for the case of minors. In re Derby, 8 Ben. 118 Fed. Cas. No. 3,815, is cited by counsel for creditors petitioning for vacation as a well-considered case, wherein Judge Blatchford (then district judge, but subsequently an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United State) decided that minors, in respect to their general contracts, are not embraced within the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1867, as subjects of voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy. Opposing counsel have cited In re Book, 3 McLean, 317, Fed. Cas. No. 1,537, wherein it is decided, in answer to the question "whether the infancy of the applicant is good ground for opposition to his discharge as a bankrupt," that "an infant may claim the benefit of the bankrupt law." This last-cited case, while given as the " opinion of the court" on questions certified to the Circuit Court from the District Court, under the provisions of the Bankrupt Act of 1841, appears to have been answered on general principles, and not upon any special provisions of that act, and to be the opinion. of Justice McLean, then a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. In neither of these cases, apparently so contrary in decision reached, is there reference as a controlling factor to any special provision of the acts in force at dates of such decisions. Yet there are apparent principles in common recognized as underlying these decisions. In the course of the opinion Judge Blatchford states, apparently as the reason leading to the conclusion reached by him:

66

"The general contracts of an infant having no force if disaffirmed by him after attaining his majority, it is idle for him to set forth, in a voluntary case, a schedule of his creditors, and idle for them to prove their debts during his infancy, for the whole proceedings must be in vain if the debts are disaffirmed by him after he attains his majority." Towards the close of his opinion he states:

"It is not intended to express an opinion as to whether or not an infant may not voluntarily petition in respect of contracts for which he is liable, such as debts for the value of necessaries."

While Justice McLean states:

"An infant is bound to pay certain debts. The bankrupt law extends its benefits to all persons who are in a state of bankruptcy, without exception as to persons. Fiduciary debtors only are excepted. .. When an infant brings his case within the bankrupt law, the law vests his property in the assignee."

...

Apparently, therefore, if the infant is liable for the debts he schedules, he may, so far as the decisions above cited have expressly decided, avail himself of the benefits of the bankrupt law, in the absence in such law of any provisions to the contrary. And the point decided in Re Derby must be regarded as applying adversely to the

right of minors to be adjudged bankrupts only as to debts which the minor had the legal right to disaffirm. The industry of counsel has brought to the court only these two decisions as directly bearing on the question here presented. The contention presented in the pending matter may be regarded as closely analogous to the question presented under former bankruptcy statutes with reference to whether, and, if at all, to what extent, such former statutes extended their provisions to married women. The cases are numerous wherein the courts were called to deterinine how far the recognized legal disabilities of married women affected the application of the statute. In the pending matter the legal disability is alleged as applying to a minor. Without attempting an exhaustive consideration of the decisions relating to the application of former bankruptcy laws to married women, a few may profitably be here considered. In Re Slichter, Fed. Cas. No. 12,943, Judge Nelson, in 1869, passed directly on the question, arising in the district of Minnesota, over which this distinguished judge so long presided, as to the status of a married woman under the act of 1867. Catharine Slichter and her son had been trading under the firm name of Slichter & Son. This decision recognizes that the statutes of that State had relieved married women of many of the disabilities to which they were theretofore subjected, but that Mrs. Slichter could make no contract, in the course and business of said firm, except as authorized by the laws of that State. "There being no evidence that Mrs. Slichter was engaged in business by virtue of any authority conferred by the statute, she could avail herself of her coverture to defeat the debt which was the basis of the bankruptcy proceedings."

In re Kinkead, 3 Biss. 405, Fed. Cas. No. 7,824, was decided in 1873 by Judge Blodgett. This decision with exhaustive clearness applies the statutes of Illinois regarding the legal status of married women as to property rights. J. D. Kinkead and his wife, under the firm name of Kinkead & Co., were carrying on a partnership business as traders. Kinkead & Co. and J. D. Kinkead, by proceedings in involuntary bankruptcy, had been adjudicated bankrupts. An individual creditor of J. D. Kinkead sought to have his debt established against the firm assets, on the ground that the contract of co-partnership was void and inoperative by reason of the inability of the wife to make a binding contract. After a full and clear statement of the statute of the State relating to the questions involved, Judge Blodgett, in closing his opinion, states:

"The fact that Mrs. Kinkead was not individually adjudged a bankrupt does not, in my view, change the aspect of the case. Such an adjudication could only be necessary for the purpose of reaching her individual property, if she has any, which is not alleged; and she may yet be so adjudged if it becomes necessary in the course of these proceedings."

The decision reached above was subsequently affirmed by Circuit Judge Drummond (1874), before whom the case was taken on review.