ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.
The firm of Reinhard & Company, composed of John G. Reinhard and Henry A. Reinhard, carried on a banking business in Columbus, Ohio. On April 10, 1900, the firm made a general assignment under the insolvent laws of Ohio. On the following day a petition in involuntary bankruptcy under the laws of the United States was filed against the firm, and on August 10, 1900, it was adjudged bankrupt, and subsequently Rector, the plaintiff in error, was appointed the trustee.
In a Court of Common Pleas of the State of Ohio the trustee began this suit against the defendant in error to recover the sum of $1,300, which it was subsequently agreed was only $1,161.74. The petition alleged the adjudication in bankruptcy and the appointment of the trustee, and based his right to recover upon the ground that on April 10, 1900, the firm had transferred and assigned to the defendant bank, who had received the same the sum of money sued for, which it was
alleged was the property of Reinhard & Company, and, in substance, the payment to the bank was alleged to constitute a voidable preference.
The answer admitted the making of the general assignment, the adjudication of the firm as an involuntary bankrupt, and the appointment and qualification of the plaintiff as trustee. The other averments of the petition were denied.
A trial was had to a jury. At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff the court at the request of the defendant instructed a verdict in its favor and judgment was entered dismissing the action. The Circuit Court of Franklin County affirmed the judgment, which was thereafter affirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, without opinion. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio made and the court caused to be filed and entered on its journal the certificate which is in the margin.*fn1
It is contended that this court is without jurisdiction. The argument upon which this proposition is rested is this: First. It is said that whilst in the petition the right of recoverey was based upon the ground of fraudulent preference, it was not disclosed therein whether the preference relied upon was in violation of the bankrupt law of the United States or of the insolvent laws of the State of Ohio, and therefore a Federal question was not raised, as it was necessary to specially direct the attention of the state court to such a question if it was intended to rely upon it. Second. But even if a Federal question was referred to in the petition, as the cause of action stated in nowise involved the construction or validity of any provision of the bankrupt act, therefore there is no right to review under section 709 of the Revised Statutes.
Both these contentions might well be disposed of by saying that the action was brought by a trustee appointed under the bankrupt law of the United States, seeking to recover what was asserted to be an asset of the bankrupt estate under that law. This, therefore, presented a Federal question, and the denial of the asserted right was a denial of a right or title specially claimed under a law of the United States. Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612; Barton v. Geiler, 108 U.S. 161; Williams v. Heard 140 U.S. 529; Dushane v. Beall, 161 U.S. 513; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255. Whether expressions, relied upon in argument, contained in Cramer v. Wilson, 195 U.S. 408, 416, must be taken as not in harmony with the previous cases, or whether those expressions simply implied that where a right claimed by a trustee in bankruptcy in its final aspect depended
solely upon a state law, the courts of the United States would follow the construction given by the highest courts of the State to the state law, we do not deem it necessary now to say, for, without reference to the doctrine announced in the previous cases and without regard to the import of the case of Cramer v. Wilson, the contention as to the want of jurisdiction is without merit. It is to be observed that the matter certified by the Supreme Court of Ohio was made by that court a part of the record, and, if it be considered as having the force of an opinion of that court, would clearly establish the fact that the court had considered and decided a Federal question, which, apart from other considerations, would obviously give jurisdiction. But even if the action of the court be treated as not an opinion, but a mere certificate, the same result would follow. It is elementary that the certificate of a court of last resort of a State may not import a Federal question into a record where otherwise such question does not arise, it is equally elementary that such a certificate may serve to elucidate the determination whether a Federal question exists. Applying this principle, we think as the suit was brought by a trustee in bankruptcy in virtue of the power and authority conferred upon him by a law of the United States, the certificate makes clear the ...