1. When a decree of the district court has been affirmed by a
decree of the circuit court of appeals which this Court has
Page 266 U. S. 504
declined to review by certiorari, questions concerning its
validity and merits cannot be reopened either by the district court
or through an attempted review in this Court, by direct appeal or
writ of error, of the order enforcing the mandate. P. 506.
2. An order of the district court inflicting punishment for
contempt is not ordinarily reviewable in this Court by direct
appeal or writ of error.
Id.
3. Of writ of error and appeal, the former is the appropriate
mode of review in criminal contempts, but c. 448, § 4, 39 Stat.
727, renders the distinction unimportant. P.
266 U. S. 507.
4. An order of the district court punishing a party for contempt
in disobeying an order made to enforce a mandate from the circuit
court of appeal cannot be reviewed here by direct writ of error
upon the ground that it exceeded the district court's jurisdiction
and infringed constitutional rights where these questions were
foreclosed by the decree of the circuit court of appeals upon which
the mandate issued.
Id.
Appeal dismissed.
[
sic] from an order of the district court commanding
the appellant to make a payment, as ordered by a referee in
bankruptcy, and fining the appellant for contumacy in having
refused to do so. The referee's order was made in pursuance of a
mandate from the circuit court of appeals.
See 295 F.
120.
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Walker Grain Company, on July 27, 1918, borrowed from the
American National Bank of Fort Worth, Tex. $10,000, for which it
executed its demand note
Page 266 U. S. 505
payable to the bank. August 16th following, a petition in
bankruptcy was filed against the grain company, upon which it was
adjudicated a bankrupt. After the petition was filed the bankrupt
paid the amount of the note and thereafter appellant succeeded to
all the assets and rights and assumed all the liabilities of the
American National. Upon these facts, the trustee in bankruptcy
filed a motion with the referee to summarily require appellant to
restore the amount of such payment. Appellant, by proper pleading,
denied the jurisdiction of the referee, insisted that the trustee
should proceed by a plenary suit, and alleged that the note was
secured by property of the bankrupt and that the payee bank was
entitled to priority of payment. The referee found that the note
was not so secured, that appellant had no color of right to the
payment made after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings,
and ordered appellant to pay over to the trustee the amount
received. The findings and conclusions of the referee were approved
by an order of the district court, and its order was affirmed upon
petition to revise by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
295 F. 120, and this Court denied a petition for certiorari, 264
U.S. 588. After the mandate had gone down to the district court,
the referee ordered appellant to comply therewith, but appellant
refused to do so, which refusal was certified to the district court
for its action. At the same time, the trustee moved the court for
an order to compel compliance with the mandate. After a hearing,
the district court found appellant guilty of contempt, and, in
addition to commanding payment of the amount ordered by the
referee, imposed a fine of $2,500 as punishment for appellant's
contumacious behavior, one-half payable to the United States and
one-half to the trustee in bankruptcy. From this order appellant
has not only taken this appeal, but also a petition to revise to
the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Page 266 U. S. 506
Appellee has submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm
the decree of the district court upon the grounds, among others,
that this Court is without authority to entertain the appeal, and
that there is no substance in the questions sought to be presented.
The motion to dismiss must be granted.
Upon the appeal here, appellant seeks a review of the order
adjudging appellant in contempt and also of the jurisdictional
issues disposed of by the original decree approving the action of
the referee which the circuit court of appeals refused to disturb.
All questions concerning the validity and merits of that decree
were finally disposed of by the decree of the circuit court of
appeals and the denial of the application for a certiorari by this
Court. The district court was bound to give effect to the decision
of the circuit court of appeals, so that what, in effect, we are
asked to do is to review and reverse the decree of the latter. The
power here to review that decree has been exhausted, but, in any
event, it could not be exercised upon direct appeal or error.
Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U.
S. 325,
222 U. S.
331-334;
Carter v. Roberts, 177 U.
S. 496,
177 U. S. 500;
Union Trust Co. v. Westhus, 228 U.
S. 519,
228 U. S.
522-524;
Metropolitan Co. v. Kaw Valley
District, 223 U. S. 519,
223 U. S.
522-524;
Shapiro v. United States, 235 U.
S. 412,
235 U. S.
415-417.
It follows that the only questions open for consideration are
those arising from the contempt order. But that order, being in
part punitive, takes character from its criminal feature, and
ordinarily such an order is not open to review by this Court upon
direct appeal or error.
O'Neal v. United States,
190 U. S. 36,
190 U. S. 38;
Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121,
102 U. S. 122;
In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443,
165 U. S. 462.
And see Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.
S. 107,
259 U. S.
110-111;
Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co.,
194 U. S. 324,
194 U. S.
336-338;
Matter of Christensen Engineering Co.,
194 U. S. 458,
194 U. S. 461;
In re Merchants' Stock & Grain Co., Petitioner,
223 U. S. 639,
Page 266 U. S. 507
641,
223 U. S. 642.
It may be said in passing that the case is here upon appeal, not
upon writ of error, the appropriate mode of review in criminal
contempts, but that is unimportant under c. 448, § 4, 39 Stat. 726,
727, requiring disregard of such mistakes.
Appellant insists, however, that the jurisdiction of this Court
attaches upon the grounds that the district court was without
jurisdiction to make the order, and that there was a denial of
constitutional rights.
See Grant v. United States,
227 U. S. 74,
227 U. S. 78-79.
Jurisdiction of the district court here over the person and over
the subject matter of contempts is beyond question, and the
challenge to the jurisdiction, as well as the assumed denial of
constitutional rights, apparently are made to rest only upon the
assertion that it was not within the power of the referee or the
district court, as a court of bankruptcy, to require the bank, by a
summary order, to restore to the trustee the amount of the payment
in question, the contention being that the only remedy was by
plenary action, with the right of trial by jury. But, since the
decision of the circuit court of appeals, as already stated, is
conclusively against appellant upon that issue, and prevented any
further consideration of it by the district court, the asserted
basis for a direct resort to this Court is without any
substance.
Appeal dismissed.