The case presented by the record is a simple one, and does not call for elaborate discussion. Indeed, it has been virtually ruled by this court. Hyde v. Woods, 94 U.S. 525, 24 L. ed. 265; Sparhawk v. Yerkes, 142 U.S. 1, 35 L. ed. 915, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 104.
Section 70 of the bankrupt act of 1898 provides that the trustee shall be vested with:
'The title of the bankrupt as of the date he was adjudged a bankrupt, except in so far as it is property which is exempt, to all. . . .
'(3) Powers which he might have exercised for his own benefit. . . .
'(5) Property which prior to the filing of the petition he could by any means have transferred, or which might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process.' [30 Stat. at L. 566, chap. 541, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 3451.]
This section, with that which provides for exemptions of property, constitute the elements to be considered.
Section 6 of the Lankrupt act provides as follows:
'This act shall not affect the allowance to bankrupts of the exemptions which are prescribed by the state laws in force at the time of the filing of the petition in the state wherein they have had their domicil for the six months, or the greater portion thereof, immediately preceding the filing of the petition.'
1. Was the seat in the stock exchange property which could have been by any means transferred, or which might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process? If the seat was subject to either manner of disposition, it passed to the trustee of the appellant's estate.
We think it could have been transferred within the meaning of the statute. The appellant could have sold his membership, the purchaser taking it subject to election by the exchange, and some other conditions. It had decided value. The appellant paid for it in 1880, $5,500, and he testified that the last price he had heard paid for a seat was $8,500. One or the other of these sums, or, at any rate, some sum, was the value of the seat. It was property and substantial property to the extent of some amount, notwithstanding the contingencies to which it was subject. In other words, the buyer took the risk of the contingencies. And they seem to be capable of estimation. The appellant once estimated them and paid $5,500 for the seat in controversy; another buyer estimated them and paid $8,500 for a seat. A thing having such vendible value must be regarded as property, and as it could have been transferred by some means by appellant (one of the conditions expressed in § 70) it passed to and vested in his trustee. Whether it was subject to levy and sale by judicial process we need not consider except incidentally in discussing the next contention.
2. To sustain the claim of exemption under the state law, and therefore under the bankrupt act, appellant relies upon the decisions of the supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania. If those decisions are interpretations of the state statute, we must yield to their authority. If they are declarations of general law, mere definitions of property,-we may dispute their conclusions if their reasoning does not persuade.
Two cases are cited by appellant: Thompson v. Adams, 93 Pa. 55, and Pancoast v. Gowen, 93 Pa. 66.
In Thompson v. Adams the following facts were presented (we quote from appellant's brief):
'Thompson furnished to Richards the money with which to purchase a membership seat in the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. Richards subsequently died indebted to sundry members of the exchange, and his seat was sold by it under its rules, to satisfy these claims, which were in excess of, and exhausted, the proceeds realized. Thompson sued Adams et al., trading as the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, to recover the proceeds of the seat in the treasurer's hands, claiming to be the equitable owner of the seat, as against the creditors of Richards in the exchange.'
The entire opinion of the court was as follows: