Pierce Butler

“ All creditors except plaintiff in error agreed fully to release insolvent in consideration of the distribution directed by the decree. And, as their claims were much in excess of the fund, plaintiff in error could have obtained nothing on account of its claim without giving insolvent a full release.
The decision below is not supported by Boese v. King, supra. In that case there was an assignment under the New Jersey insolvency law. Some years later creditors obtained judgment against the assignor in New York. ”

“ Therefore he could not have obtained discharge under Bankruptcy Act, § 14, U.S.C. tit. 11, § 32 (11 USCA § 32) , and, in proceedings under that act, all his creditors would have been entitled to participate in distribution without releasing the insolvent as to unpaid balances.
The power of Congress to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States is unrestricted and paramount. Constitution, art. 1, § 8, cl. 4. The purpose to exclude state action for the discharge of insolvent debtors may be manifested without specific declaration to that end ”

“ The general rule is that an intention wholly to exclude state action will not be implied unless, when fairly interpreted, an act of Congress is plainly in conflict with state regulation of the same subject. Savage v. Jones, supra; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 245 U.S. 493, 510, 38 S.C.t. 170, 62 L. Ed. 425; Merchants Exchange v. Missouri, 248 U.S. 365, 39 S.C.t. 114, 63 L. Ed. 300. In respect of bankruptcies the intention of Congress is plain. ”