## Facts

- Nathan Feibelman sued Packard, a United States marshal for the District of Louisiana, and Packard’s sureties on his official bond in Louisiana state court.
- Feibelman sought damages for the alleged unlawful seizure and forcible taking of a stock of merchandise he claimed to own and possess.
- The marshal seized the goods under a writ issued by a federal district judge in bankruptcy proceedings brought by creditors against E. Dreyfus & Co.
- Feibelman alleged the writ did not justify the marshal’s acts and amended to allege the acts were done in Packard’s official capacity, constituting breaches of the bond.
- Defendants sought removal to federal court under the Act of March 3, 1875, asserting the suit arose under federal law and exceeded the jurisdictional amount; the state court denied removal.
- Defendants obtained a writ of certiorari from federal circuit court, the case proceeded there, and final judgment was entered for the marshal and sureties.

## Issues

1. Whether an action against a U.S. marshal and his sureties on the marshal’s official bond, based on a seizure under a federal bankruptcy writ, is a civil suit “arising under” federal law and removable from state court under the Act of March 3, 1875.
2. Whether a federal district court sitting in bankruptcy may order seizure and detention of goods that are allegedly property of the bankrupt even though the goods are in a third party’s possession under a claim of title, and whether the marshal may justify obedience to that order by proving title was in the bankrupt at seizure despite contrary state law rules.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the federal circuit court’s judgment for the marshal and his sureties.
- The Court held the suit was removable because it arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States and satisfied the statutory amount requirement.
- The Court held a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to order seizure and detention of property of the bankrupt even when held by another claiming title.
- The Court held the marshal may defend by proving the property belonged to the bankrupt at the time of seizure, and conflicting state laws do not control.

## Legal Principles

- A state-law form of action against a federal officer (and sureties) for acts done under authority of a federal court’s bankruptcy process arises under federal law for removal purposes when the officer’s federal authority and duties are essential to the case.
- Federal bankruptcy jurisdiction includes power to secure and hold property belonging to the bankrupt estate, even if the property is in the possession of a third party asserting ownership.
- An officer executing a bankruptcy court’s seizure order may justify his conduct in a later damages action by proving the seized property was the bankrupt’s at the time of seizure.
- State property or procedural rules that conflict with the exercise of federal bankruptcy power are inapplicable to the extent of the conflict.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld removal and affirmed judgment for the marshal and sureties, ruling that a bond action challenging a marshal’s seizure under a federal bankruptcy writ presents a federal question and that bankruptcy courts may order seizure of the bankrupt’s property from third-party possessors, with conflicting state rules yielding to federal bankruptcy authority.


Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U.S. 421 (1883)