that proceeding and required the petitioner to proceed by a bill in equity or a suit at law. In re Belew, 4 Ben. 135; 2 Fed. Cas. 559.

It was stated by Judge Woodruff that the practice in the New York circuit under the Act of 1867 was to review by petition, but that the circuit court could entertain a plenary suit. Hurst v. Teft, 12 Blatchf. 217; 12 Fed. Cas. 1044.

The circuit court will entertain a bill in equity requiring an assignee in bankruptcy to account and pay dividends when that authority is not conferred by the Act upon the district court. Lucas et al. v. Morris et al., 1 Paine, 396; 15 Fed. Cas. 1063 (1825).

Under section 2 of the Act of 1867, a circuit court in a district other than the one in which the decree of bankruptcy was made, has jurisdiction over a cross-bill filed by an assignee in bankruptcy to assert a right to redeem mortgaged property. Barnard et al. v. Hartford P. F. R. Co. et al., 2 Fed. Cas. 832.

A bankrupt in making his schedules conceals, and, after his discharge, fraudulently conveys his property. A suit by his assignee to set aside such conveyance is not a suit to annul the decree of discharge. Such suit is, therefore, not required to be brought in the district court which rendered the decree. The circuit court is the proper tribunal. Nicholas v. Murray, 5 Saw. 320; 18 Fed. Cas. 174 (1878).

The circuit court for the district of Michigan held that it could entertain a bill by an assignee against several lien holders to ascertain the amounts due, and sell all the property free from incumbrances. Sutherland et al. v. Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railroad & Iron Co. et al., 9 N. B. R. 298; 23 Fed. Cas. 459.

The jurisdiction under the Act of 1867, which the circuit court owed to the fact that the complainant was an assignee in bankruptcy, was not lost because he had parted with all of his title to the property in controversy during the pendency of the suit. Barnard et al. v. Hartford P. F. R. Co. et al., 2 Fed. Cas. 832.

Judge Emmons held that the decision of the supreme court in Marshall v. Knox, 83 U. S. 551, does not deprive the circuit court of its power to order all matters pending in a state court to be adjudicated in an original suit subsequently to be commenced in such court by an assignee in bankruptcy. Sutherland et al. v. Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railroad & Iron Co. et al., 9 N. B. R. 298; 23 Fed. Cas. 459.

The circuit court was held to have no jurisdiction under the Act of 1867 over a bill in equity by the assignee of a bankrupt firm against the assignee of one of the partners to require him to pay the complainant from moneys remaining in his hands after the individual creditors of the partner were satisfied. Stevens v. Appleton et al., 4 Cliff. 265; 23 Fed. Cas. 6.

Held, that the circuit court had jurisdiction of a bill in equity by an assignee in bankruptcy against the bankrupt and another to set aside a conveyance made by the bankrupt to the other defendant and for an accounting and a discovery. Verselius v. Verselius et al., 9 Blatchf. 189; 28 Fed. Cas. 1169.

A suit by an assignee in bankruptcy in the circuit court against the bankrupt's wife and a third party for the recovery of property alleged to have been unlawfully transferred was sustained by the court as to its jurisdiction on the ground that the matter in dispute exceeded $500, and that the suit was between citizens of different states. Spaulding v. McGovern et al., 10 N. B. R. 188; 22 Fed. Cas. 891.

Where an adjudication was had in Kansas, and a resident of Minnesota brought a suit in Indiana without leave of the bankrupt court to foreclose a mortgage given by the bankrupt, making the assignees in bankruptcy parties defendant, and the assignees in bankruptcy brought a suit in the circuit court in the district of Minnesota against the plaintiff in the foreclosure suit asking to have the mortgage declared void, and for an injunction from the further prosecution of the foreclosure suit in Indiana, Judge Dillon held that the circuit court for Minnesota had no bankruptcy jurisdiction, and could only exercise its ordinary equity powers, and accordingly refused to grant the injunction. Markson v. Heaney, 1 Dill. 497; 16 Fed. Cas. 769.

Neither the Judiciary Act of 1789, nor the Bankrupt Law of 1800, nor any other law authorized a circuit court to enjoin proceedings by the bankrupt or his counsel in the district court. Sand's Case, 1 U. S. L. J. 15; 21 Fed. Cas. 333 (1803).

An assignee in bankruptcy can maintain an action for the recovery of assets in a circuit court other than that where the bankruptcy proceedings are pending without regard to citizenship. So held under the Act of 1867. Lathrop v. Drake, 91 U. S. 516. (Clearly not under the present law.)

Under the Act of 1867 the circuit court had original concurrent jurisdiction with the district court to determine the validity of conveyances, and the rights of the parties to a fund received by an assignee in bankruptcy from the sale of incumbered property. Giveen v. Smith et al., 1 Hask. 358; 10 Fed. Cas. 454.

The supreme court held in the case cited that under the Act of 1867 an assignee in bankruptcy could maintain an action in a state court to recover assets of the bankrupt. Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130.

A person claiming an interest in property transferred to the assignee could maintain an action for the recovery of the same in the United States circuit court without respect to diversity of citizenship. Burbank v. Biglowe, 92 U. S. 179. (Otherwise under the present law).

The United States circuit court has no jurisdiction in a suit brought by a purchaser from an assignee in bankruptcy to enjoin the sale of the same property under an order of a state court. Sargent v. Helton, 115 U. S. 348.

An assignee in bankruptcy having in possession property which had been levied upon by virtue of a writ of attachment could maintain a bill in equity in the circuit court to remove the attachment as a cloud upon the title, and the circuit court could restrain the sale of the property by injunction. Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158.

Proceedings in bankruptcy were pending against a debtor in the eastern district of New York. The bankrupt applied to the circuit court for the southern district to restrain proceedings under a judgment and execution in a state court. Held, under section 720, R. S., that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction. Tifft v. Ironclad Mfg. Co. et al., 16 Blatchf. 48; 23 Fed. Cas. 1217.

The jurisdiction of the circuit court over a suit in equity brought by the assignee of a bankrupt in one state against citizens of another state, to recover a debt due the bankrupt's estate, was not conferred by the Bankrupt Act of 1867, but by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Gindrat et al. v. Dane et al., 4 Cliff. 260; 10 Fed. Cas. 434.

The circuit court for the district of Missouri affirmed its jurisdiction over a suit brought by an assignee in bankruptcy for that district against a citizen of Pennsylvania, on the ground that the jurisdiction was conferred by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Post v. Rouse, 19 Fed. Cas. 1091. The circuit court has jurisdiction of all suits brought by an assignee in bankruptcy, or against one. McLean v. LaFayette Bank et al., 3 McLean, 185; 16 Fed. Cas. 253 (1843).

The district court, and not the circuit court, has jurisdictiɔn of a bill filed by creditors before the appointment of an assignee to restrain the holder of a chattel mortgage in possession from disposing of the goods covered by the mortgage. Johnson et al. v. Price, 13 N. B. R. 523; 13 Fed. Cas. 793.

Under the Act of 1867 an assignee in bankruptcy could bring a suit in equity to redeem property from a chattel mortgage in either the circuit or district courts of the United States. Foster et al. v. Ames et al., 1 Low. 313; 9 Fed. Cas. 527.

The circuit court for Pennsylvania decided under the Act of 1867 that it had no jurisdiction of a suit by an assignee in bankruptcy appointed in another district to recover the amount of a preference obtained by a creditor. Lathrop v. Drake et al., 30 Leg. Int. 141; 14 Fed. Cas. 1178. This case was appealed to the supreme court, where the decree of the circuit court was reversed on the proposition above stated. Lathrop v. Drake et al., 91 U. S. 516.

Suits between the assignee and the bankrupt, depending on the status of the latter, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court; but the circuit court had jurisdiction, under the Act of 1867, of an action by the assignee against the bankrupt for property in his possession that he claims as agent for a third person. Carr v. Gale, 2 Ware, 330; 5 Fed. Cas. 118 (1847); affirmed, Carr v. Gale, 3 W. & M. 38; 5 Fed Cas. 123.

The jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts is concurrent as to cases brought by assignees in bankruptcy against parties claiming an adverse interest. Hallack et al. v. Tritch, 17 N. B. R. 293; 11 Fed. Cas. 286.

Circuit and district courts of the United States have full jurisdiction in equity to settle and distribute the estate of the bankrupt. Mitchell v. Great Works M. & M. Co., 2 Story, 648; 17 Fed. Cas. 496 (1843).

The circuit and district courts of the United States have concurrent Jurisdiction in the collection and distribution of assets of a bankrupt. So held under the Act of 1841. McLean v. LaFayette Bank et al., 3 McLean, 185; 16 Fed. Cas. 253 (1843).

[See notes to §§ 2 and 11.]

APPEALS AND REVISION.

§ 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.

(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.

§ 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.

(b.) From any final decision of a court of appeals, allowing or rejecting a claim under this Act, an appeal may be had under such rules and within such time as may be prescribed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the following cases and no other:

(1.) 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 the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2.) Where some Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States shall certify that in his opinion the determination of the question or questions involved in the allowance or rejection of such claim is essential to a uniform construction of this Act throughout the United States.

(c.) Trustees shall not be required to give bond when they take appeals or sue out writs of error.

(d.) Controversies may be certified to the Supreme Court of the United States from other courts of the United States, and the former court may exercise jurisdiction thereof and issue writs of certiorari pursuant to the provisions of the United States laws now in force or such as may be hereafter enacted.

Appellate and Revisory Jurisdiction and Practice.

It was held to be fatal to an appeal under the Act of 1867, that no notice was given to the assignee in bankruptcy, within ten days after the entry of the decree. Wood v. Bailey, 21 Wall. 640.

The time for appeal in bankruptcy cannot be extended after the period for appeal has lapsed. Judson v. Courier Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 705.

The right of appeal conferred by section 8 of the Act of 1867 cannot be enlarged by the court; and where a proper bond is not given, the appeal will not be allowed. Benjamin v. Hart, 4 Ben. 454; 3 Fed. Cas. 189.

It was held under the Act of 1867 that an appellate court obtains jurisdiction by the filing and service of the notice of appeal, and not by the filing of the transcript; also that the time for filing the transcript may be extended by consent beyond the statutory time. Baldwin v. Raplee, 5 N. B. R. 19; 2 Fed. Cas. 526.

The supreme court sustained the action of the circuit court in dismissing an appeal to the latter court which was not entered at a term then in progress, within ten days after it had been taken, from a decision of the district court in bankruptcy. Ex parte Woollen, 104 U. S. 300. Under the Act of 1867, the circuit court would review an order adjudging the petitioner a bankrupt when all the testimony in the district court on the trial of the issue was preserved by a bill of exceptions; but would not reverse the lower court on a question of fact, unless its decision was manifestly erroneous. In re Pickton, 2 Dill. 548; 19 Fed. Cas. 620. A failure to file the appeal and statement within ten days, by a creditor appealing from a decision rejecting his claim, was held not to be jurisdictional under the Act of 1867, notwithstanding the provisions of general order number 26. Fellows v. Burnap, 14 Blatchf. 63; 8 Fed. Cas. 1131.