Obrázky stránek

not establish the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, showing the adjudication in bankruptcy; his appointment as assignee and the assignment to him of the bankrupt's estate is sufficient. (Cone, Ass., v. Purcell, 11 N. B. R. 490.) On motion in a state court, an attachment issued within four months before the beginning of bankruptcy proceedings will be dissolved, although judgment has been entered and proceeds of sale paid to plaintiff by the sheriff. (Dickerson v. Spaulding et al., Assignees, 15 N. B. R. 213.)

Acts of state courts which bind federal courts.- Where acts are done by state courts, in the proper exercise of their jurisdiction, which do not conflict with the decrees or jurisdiction of federal courts, such acts are valid and bind the federal courts. (In re Keiler et al., 18 N. B. R. 10; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 42; 9 West. Jur. 175; Fed. Cas. 7647.) The finding of a state court that a debt was one created by the defalcation of a bankrupt while acting in a fiduciary capacity is conclusive on the bankrupt court. (In re Whitney, 18 N. B. R. 563; Fed. Cas. 17581.) Whatever is declared and treated as a valid levy and a valid and subsisting lien by the state laws and courts will be so treated by the bankruptcy court. (Armstrong, Ass., v. Rickey, 2 N. B. R. 150; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 145; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 65; Fed. Cas. 546.) When an assignee in bankruptcy voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of a state court, he cannot after judgment object to the power of such court, and a federal court cannot assume jurisdiction (Scott v. Kelly, Sheriff, 12 N. B. R. 96; 22 Wall. 57); but in general, decisions of state courts are not binding on the bankrupt court, although provisions in state insolv ent laws may be similar to those of the Bankrupt Act. (In re Knight, 8 N. B. R. 436; 30 Leg. Int. 338; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 43; Fed. Cas. 7880.)

It was held under the act of 1867 that a state court first obtaining possession of property and control of litigation has the right to finish proceedings before interference by the bankrupt court, and any rights of the assignee will be protected (Appleton v. Bowles et al., 9 N. B. R. 351); and that congress cannot impose upon state courts any duties in connection with the enforcement of the bankrupt laws. (Goodall v. Tuttle, 7 N. B. R. 193; 3 Biss. 219; 5 Amer. L. T. Rep. (U. S. Ct.) 240; 7 West. Jur. 32; 4 Chi. Leg. News, 473, 485; Fed. Cas. 5533.)

Costs. See COSTS, ante, p. 30.

Concurrent jurisdiction.-State courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the United States courts of actions and suits in which a bankrupt or his assignee is a party. (Claflin v. Houseman, Ass., 15 N. B. R. 50; Samson v. Burton, 4 N. B. R. 1; 5 Ben. 343; Fed. Cas. 12285; Payson v. Dietz, 8 N. B. R. 193; 2 Dill. 504; Fed. Cas. 10861; Gilbert v. Priest, id. 159; Kidder, Ass., v. Harriban, 18 N. B. R. 146; Wente v. Young et al., 17 N. B. R. 90; Goodrich v. Wilson, 14 N. B. R. 555.) Where a receiver has been appointed by a state court to take possession of the property of a corporation, a United States court will not appoint

a receiver for that purpose, as the jurisdiction is concurrent. (Blake v. Alabama & Chattanooga R. R. Co., 6 N. B. R. 331; Fed. Cas. 1493.) But in general, the state court under state laws, and the federal court under bankruptcy laws, have not concurrent jurisdiction, and the latter are not prevented from acting because the former has obtained jurisdiction of the parties under the state laws. (In re Merchants' Insurance Co., 6 N. B. R. 43; 3 Biss. 162; 20 Pittsb. Leg. J. 32; 4 Chi. Leg. News, 73; Fed. Cas. 9441.)

Sec. 24. Jurisdiction of appellate courts.-a. The Supreme Court of the United States, the circuit courts of appeals of the United States, and the supreme courts of the Territories, in vacation in chambers and during their respective terms, as now or as they may be hereafter held, are hereby invested with appellate jurisdiction of controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings from the courts of bankruptcy from which they have appellate jurisdiction in other cases. The Supreme Court of the United States shall exercise a like jurisdiction from courts of bankruptcy not within any organized circuit of the United States and from the supreme court of the District of Columbia.

[Act of 1867. For analogous provision see secs. 8 and 24, which follow section 25 of this act.]

To all intents and purposes the session of the appellate courts is continuous throughout the year, as they are invested with the appellate jurisdiction of bankruptcy controversies in vacation in chambers and during their respective terms. This right of review is limited to proceedings in the courts of bankruptcy, and not to the rulings or action of either referee or trustee. Under this section appeals from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia are taken immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States instead of through the court of appeals of the district. Section 25 provides for the class of cases that may be reviewed, and fixes the time for the same.

the following statutory provisions have particular reference to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

U. S. R. S., secs. 687-710, 5261.

The act of April 7, 1874, ch. 80 (1 Supp. R. S. 7), which provides that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over judgments and decrees of territorial courts, in cases of trial by jury, shall be by writ of error, and in other cases by appeal, etc.

The act of February 16, 1875, ch. 77, sec. 1 (1 Supp. R. S. 62, 63), limits the review by the Supreme Court of decrees of circuit courts in admi

ralty cases to questions of law arising on findings of fact to be made in such cases by circuit courts.

The act of March 3, 1885, ch. 353 (1 Supp. R. S. 485), provides for an ap peal to the Supreme Court in cases of habeas corpus.

The act of March 3, 1885, ch. 355 (1 Supp. R. S. 485), regulates appeals from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and the territories.

The act of August 13, 1888, ch. 866, secs. 1, 6 (1 Supp. R. S. 613, 614), takes away the right of review by the Supreme Court of orders of circuit courts remanding causes to state courts.

The act of February 25, 1889, ch. 266 (1 Supp. R. S. 650), provides for writs of error or appeals to the Supreme Court in cases involving the question of the jurisdiction of circuit courts.

The act of March 3, 1891 (1 Supp. R. S. 901), makes provision for appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States in view of the creation of the circuit courts of appeals.

While there are numerous other provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the above are the most important in connection with civil matters.

b. The several circuit courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction in equity, either interlocutory or final, to superintend and revise in matter of law the proceedings of the several inferior courts of bankruptcy within their jurisdiction. Such power shall be exercised on due notice and petition by any party aggrieved.

When appeal allowed.- The right of review of bankruptcy proceed. ings by the United States circuit courts has been replaced by the circuit courts of appeal, but this right is limited to revisions in matter of law; and while differences exist between the act of 1867 and the present law relative to this question of review, reference is made to some of the decisions, as perhaps being useful by analogy.

An order of the court discharging a bankrupt cannot be reviewed in the circuit court, where the record presents only questions of fact (Ruddick v. Billings, 3 N. B. R. 14; Woolw. 330; 2 West. Jur. 275; Fed. Cas. 12110); nor can it go behind a general finding to inquire into the weight and sufficiency of evidence (Babbitt v. Burgess, 7 N. B. R. 561; 2 Dill. 169; 5 Chi. Leg. News, 326; Fed. Cas. 693); nor can it decide questions, either of law or fact, that were not raised or involved in the decision of the district court (In re Jaycox et al., 13 N. B. R. 122; Fed. Cas. 7244); or that do not appear on the record. (Serra é Hijo v. Hoffman & Co., 17 N. B. R. 124.)

Ordinarily nothing can be done but to dismiss when both the circuit court and the Supreme Court are without jurisdiction; but this rule

would not apply where the circuit court had rendered a judgment in favor of party bringing suit. In such case the Supreme Court will reverse the judgment in the court below and remand the cause with directions to dismiss (Stickney, Ass., v. Wilt, 11 N. B. R. 97; 23 Wall. 150); and, as a rule, a case wrongfully appealed should be dismissed, except where dismissal would give force to an erroneous decree entered in a case over which the court has no jurisdiction. (Id.)

Instructions are entitled to reasonable construction, and, if correct when applied to the facts submitted to the jury, they will be sustained in an appellate court, even though, when standing alone, they would be incomplete. (Willis v. Carpenter, 14 N. B. R. 521; Fed. Cas. 17770.)

To superintend and revise-Interlocutory matters.- From a decision of a circuit court, in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction granted to it, on proceedings in bankruptcy of a summary character, no appeal will lie. (Hall v. Allen, 9 N. B. R. 6; 12 Wall. 452.)

Exceptions were taken to report of a register stating that he postponed proof of certain claims and declaring A. elected assignee. The district court held that he erred in postponing said claims and that no legal election was held. Thereupon B. was appointed assignee. Upon a petition to the circuit court for a review of proceedings, it was held that no principles of equity being involved, and the district court having large discretionary powers in the matter, the circuit court would not interfere. (Woods et al. v. Buckewell et al., 7 N. B. R. 405; 2 Dill 38; 6 Alb. Law J. 291; Fed. Cas. 17991.) A judge sitting at chambers has the same jurisdiction as when sitting in court, and all adjudication, or orders so made, may be revised in the circuit court for the district where the proceedings shall be pending. (Shearman v. Bingham et al., 7 N. B. R. 490; Hall v. Allen, 9 N. B. R. 6; 12 Wall. 452. See Morgan v. Thornhill, 5 N. B. R. 1; 11 Wall. 65.)

An appeal cannot be used to give a party a second trial, but only for re-examination and revision of rulings and decrees. (In re Dow, 6 N. B. R. 10; Fed. Cas. 4036.)

An appeal to the circuit court to review the district court granting a discharge, and to decree that the bankrupt is not entitled to discharge, with a prayer for such further order and relief in the premises as to the court may seem just, is an appeal to the circuit court in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, and its decision is final. (Mead v. Thompson, 8 N. B. R. 529; 15 Wall. 635.)

On refusal of the circuit court to entertain a writ of error properly sued out, the Supreme Court has power to issue mandamus to the circuit court to decide the cause. (Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Comstock, 8 N. B. R. 145; 16 Wall. 258.)

Sec. 25. Appeals and writs of error.-a. That appeals, as in equity cases, may be taken in bankruptcy proceedings

from the courts of bankruptcy to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, and to the supreme court of the Territories, in the following cases, to wit, (1) from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt; (2) from a judgment granting or denying a discharge; and (3) from a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim of five hundred dollars or over. Such appeal shall be taken within ten days after the judgment appealed from has been rendered, and may be heard and determined by the appellate court in term or vacation, as the case may be.

[Act of 1867. SEC. 8. That appeals may be taken from the district to the circuit courts in all cases in equity, and writs of error may be allowed to said circuit courts from said district courts in cases at law under the jurisdiction created by this act, when the debt or damages claimed amount to more than five hundred dollars, and any supposed creditor, whose claim is wholly or in part rejected, or an assignee who is dissatisfied with the allowance of a claim may appeal from a decision of the district court to the circuit court from the same district, but no appeal shall be allowed in any case from the district to the circuit court unless it is claimed, and notice given thereof to the clerk of the district court, to be entered with the record of the proceedings, and also to the assignee or creditor, as the case may be, or to the defeated party in equity, within ten days after the entry of the decree or decision appealed from. The appeal shall be entered at the term of the circuit court which shall be first held within and for the district next after the expiration of ten days from the time of claiming the same. But if the appellant in writing waives his appeal before any decision thereon, proceedings may be had in the district court as if no appeal had been taken; and no appeal shall be allowed unless the appellant at the time of claiming the same shall give bond in man[ner] now required by law in cases of such appeals. No writ of error shall be allowed unless the party claiming it shall comply with the statutes regulating the granting of such writs.

SEC. 24. That a supposed creditor who takes an appeal to the circuit court from the decision of the district court, rejecting his claim in whole or in part, shall, upon entering his appeal in the circuit court, file in the clerk's office thereof a statement in writing of his claim, setting forth the same,

« PředchozíPokračovat »