A ruling of the circuit court of appeal that the petitioning
creditors held provable claims is not a judgment allowing or
rejecting a claim within the meaning of 25b of the Bankruptcy Act
of 1898, and cannot under § 25a and subparagraph 1 be reviewed by
this Court.
Where the prerequisites for an appeal to this Court specified in
subparagraph 1 of § 25b of the Bankruptcy Act do not exist, and the
circuit court of appeals does not make the findings of fact and
conclusions of law required by clause 3 of General Order 36, the
appeal must be dismissed.
Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S.
89.
Appellate jurisdiction over a ruling of the circuit court of
appeals in a bankruptcy matter may not be exercised by this Court
by virtue of § 6 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517,
Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114.
Appeal from 174 F. 222 dismissed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 224 U. S. 146
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE WHITE:
Involuntary proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced against the
J. W. Calnan Company, appellant here, in the District Court of the
United States for the District of Massachusetts by a creditor
owning claims aggregating $713.86. After the filing of an answer by
the alleged bankrupt, two creditors, one owning a judgment for
$1,038.71 and the other asserting a claim of $963.75, intervened
and joined in the petition.
The Calnan Company was adjudicated a bankrupt on May 13, 1909.
Eight days afterwards, an appeal was prayed for and allowed from
that decision. In the assignment of errors, in addition to alleging
that the court erred in adjudicating it a bankrupt, the Calnan
Company alleged that the court erred in finding that the alleged
creditors owning claims for $713.86 and $963.75, respectively, were
creditors holding valid provable claims against it. In many forms
of statement it was also alleged that the court erred in finding
that the company had made an unlawful preferential payment to a
creditor. The circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment. 174
F. 222. Within thirty days after the denial of a petition for a
rehearing, this appeal was taken.
Section 25b and subparagraph 1 of the Bankruptcy Act are mainly
relied upon by counsel for the appellant as conferring jurisdiction
upon this Court to review the judgment of the court of appeals. The
clauses referred to authorize an appeal to this Court in bankruptcy
proceedings from any final decision of a court of appeals allowing
or rejecting a claim
"where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand
dollars and the question involved is one which might have been
taken on appeal or writ of error from the highest court of a
state"
to this Court. The contention, however, is untenable. By § 25(a)
of
Page 224 U. S. 147
the Bankruptcy Act appeals in bankruptcy proceedings are
authorized to the circuit courts of appeals in three specified
cases, two being: "(1) from a judgment adjudging or refusing to
adjudge the defendant a bankrupt," and "(3) from a judgment
allowing or rejecting a debt or claim of $500 or over." It is
manifest that the ruling made in the course of the determination of
an issue as to alleged bankruptcy upon a subordinate issue as to
whether or not the petitioning creditors held "provable" claims is
not a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim within the
meaning of the section, and it is also evident that a decision by
the court of appeals upon such a ruling is not a "final decision .
. . allowing or rejecting a claim under this act," within the
meaning of § 25b.
See, in this connection,
Duryea
Power Co. v. Sternbergh, 218 U. S. 299,
218 U. S. 300.
Aside, however, from these considerations, the prerequisites for an
appeal to this Court specified in subparagraph 1 of § 25(b) do not
exist, nor could the appeal be entertained, inasmuch as the court
of appeals did not make the findings of fact and conclusions of law
required by clause 3 of General Order 36.
Chapman v.
Bowen, 207 U. S. 89,
207 U. S.
90.
The further contention that jurisdiction may be exercised by
virtue of § 6 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 828,
c. 517, is shown to be without merit by our recent decision in
Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114.
Appeal dismissed.