A judgment by the circuit court on an appeal from an order of the district court in bankruptcy rejecting claims offered by an alleged creditor is not reviewable in the supreme court. Wiswall v. Campbell, 93 U. S. 347; Leggett v. Allen, 104 id. 741.

In the cases cited it was decided that an appeal does not lie to the supreme court from a decree of the circuit court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under section 2 of the Act of 1867. Hall v. Allen, 12 Wall. 452; Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 id. 65; Mead v. Thompson, 15 id. 635; Sandusky v. Nat. Bank, 23 id. 289; Connell v. Crane, 94 U. S. 441; Hill v. Thompson, id. 322; Minick v. Coleman, 95 id. 266; Milner v. Meek, id. 252. The supreme court entertained an appeal from the supreme court of the District of Columbia from a proceeding disposing of a claim under section 1 of the Act of 1867. Smith v. Mason, 14 Wall. 419.

The supreme court has jurisdiction of an appeal from a decree of the circuit court on a bill in equity filed in the district court by assignees against creditors of the bankrupt for the sale of his lands. Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65.

The supreme court held that it has no power of revision over the decrees of the district courts as courts of bankruptcy. Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292.

Where the highest court of a state has rendered the decision upon a proceeding for perpetual injunction against the collection of a judgment obtained in a court of the state on the ground of the discharge of the judgment debtor in bankruptcy, a federal question is raised which is subject to review by the supreme court of the United States. Palmer v. Hussey, 119 U. S. 96.

In the case cited, the supreme court entertained jurisdiction of an appeal from a decision by the highest court of the state on a motion to enjoin the collection of a judgment of a state court on account of the discharge of the defendants in bankruptcy, holding that it raised a federal question. Ibid.

Justice Davis held under the Law of 1867 that an order made by the circuit court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction of bankrupt proceedings may be reviewed on appeal by the supreme court. In re Fox et al., 8'Chi. Leg. News, 313; 9 Fed. Cas. 623. On appeal to the supreme court of the United States, this decision was reversed, and the appeal was dismissed. Conro v. Crane, 94 U. S. 441.

ARBITRATION.

§ 26. Arbitration

of

Controversies.(a.) The trustee may, pursuant to the direction of the court, submit to arbitration any controversy arising in the settlement of the estate.

(b.) Three arbitrators shall be chosen by mutual consent, or one by the trustee, one by the other party to the controversy, and the third by the two so chosen, or if they fail to agree in five days after their appointment the court shall appoint the third arbitrator.

(c.) The written finding of the arbitrators, or a majority of them, as to the issues presented, may be filed in court and shall have like force and effect as the verdict of a jury.

It was decided under the Act of 1867, that after the commencement of proceedings, a creditor and the bankrupt could not submit to arbitration the question what amount was due to the creditor. In re Ford et al., 18 N. B. R. 426; 9 Fed. Cas. 425.

COMPROMISES.

§ 27. Compromises.— (a.) The trustee may, with the approval of the court, compromise any controversy arising in the administration of the estate upon such terms as he may deem for the best interests of the estate.

An order of the bankrupt court approving a compromise by assignee, entered on ex parte application of the assignee, does not bind the other party. Section 5074, R. S. Duff v. Hopkins, 39 Fed. Rep. 599.

An assignee in bankruptcy may compromise a claim that depends upon the uncertainties of litigation; but only upon receiving a pro rata share. In re Furbish, 2 Hask. 120; 9 Fed. Cas. 1007.

The district court vacated an order authorizing the surrender of certain life insurance policies to a creditor to whom they had been pledged in satisfaction of a secured debt upon a showing that the order had been procured by misrepresentation of material facts. In re Hoole, 3 Fed. Rep. 496.

In the case cited the court considered and construed the general orders under the Act of 1867 relating to compromises. Ibid.

The circuit court decided under the Act of 1867 that the district court could not authorize the assignee to compound all doubtful claims with the consent and approbation of a committee of creditors. In re Dibblee, 3 Ben. 354; 7 Fed. Cas. 657.

PUBLICATION OF NOTICES.

§ 28. Designation of Newspapers.-(a.) Courts of bankruptcy shall by order designate a newspaper published within their respective territorial districts, and in the county in which the bankrupt resides or the major part of his property is situated, in which notices required to be published by this Act and orders which the court may direct to be published shall be inserted. Any court may in a particular case, for the convenience of parties in interest, designate some additional newspaper in which notices and orders in such case shall be published.

OFFENSES.

§ 29. Offenses. (a.) A person shall be punished, by imprisonment for a period not to exceed five years, upon conviction of the offense of having knowingly and fraudulently appropriated to his own use, embezzled, spent, or unlawfully transferred any property or secreted or destroyed any document belonging to a bankrupt estate which came into his charge as trustee.

(b.) A person shall be punished, by imprisonment for a period not to exceed two years, upon conviction of the offense of having knowingly and fraudulently (1) concealed while a bankrupt, or after his discharge, from his trustee any of the property belonging to his estate in bankruptcy; or (2) made a false oath or account in, or in relation. to, any proceeding in bankruptcy; (3) presented under oath any false claim for proof against the estate of a bankrupt, or used any such claim in composition personally or by agent, proxy, or attorney, or as agent, proxy, or attorney; or (4) received any material amount of property from a bankrupt after the filing of the petition, with intent to defeat this Act; or (5) extorted or attempted to extort any money or property from any person as a consideration for acting or forbearing to act in bankruptcy proceedings.

(c.) A person shall be punished by fine, not to exceed five hundred dollars, and forfeit his office, and the same shall thereupon become vacant, upon conviction of the offense of having knowingly (1) acted as a referee in a case in which he is directly or indirectly interested; or (2) purchased, while a referee, directly or indirectly, any property of the estate in bankruptcy of which he is referee; or (3) refused, while a referee or trustee, to permit a reasonable opportunity for the inspection of the accounts relating to the affairs of, and the papers and records of, estates in his charge by parties in interest when directed by the court so to do.

(d.) A person shall not be prosecuted for any offense arising under this Act unless the indictment is found or the information is filed in court within one year after the commission of the offense.

The sufficiency of an indictment under section 44 of the Act of 1867 is considered in the case cited. U. S. v. Crane, 3 Cliff. 211; 25 Fed. Cas. 689. It was held not to be necessary that an indictment for perjury by a petitioner in bankruptcy should set out the petition at length. U. S. v. Deming, 4 McLean, 3; 25 Fed. Cas. 816 (1845).

Held, that a prosecution under subdivision 6 of section 5132, R. S. (Bankrupt Act of 1867), could be based on an information, the crime not

being infamous within the meaning of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. U. S. v. Block, 4 Saw. 211; 24 Fed. Cas. 1174.

An indictment under section 44 of the Act of 1867 was held to be insufficient where it did not name the court, or the time, or the place where the proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted. U. S. v. Latorre, 8 Blatchf. 134; 26 Fed. Cas. 872.

It was held that, after the amendment of 1874, a court had jurisdiction to try an indictment under section 5132, R. S. (Act of 1867), before an adjudication was had. It was not necessary that an indictment under section 5132, R. S., should charge an intent to defraud creditors generally, or contain a negative averment to the effect that the defendant was not "carrying on business and dealing in the ordinary course of trade." U. S. v. Myers, 16 N. B. R. 387; 27 Fed. Cas. 49.

Referring to an indictment under section 44 of the Act of 1867, Judge Miller said that all matters necessary to constitute the offense must be pleaded. "It is not sufficient to aver that proceedings in bankruptcy were duly commenced. It must be pleaded and proven that the petition in bankruptcy was presented to the district court by a certain creditor, naming him, and allege the amount of such petitioning creditor's claim, and the alleged cause of bankruptcy, and the adjudication of bankruptcy. it must appear affirmatively that the creditor had a right under the law to prosecute proceedings in bankruptcy. The amount of his debt must appear, otherwise the court would have no jurisdiction. ** The description of the goods should be as definite as in a declaration in trover. The word feloniously' should be omitted." U. S. v. Prescott, 2 Biss. 325; 27 Fed. Cas. 614.

The execution of a chattel mortgage by a debtor was held to be a disposition of the property out of the usual course of business under the criminal provisions of the Act of 1867. U. S. v. Block, 4 Saw. 211; 24 Fed. Cas. 1174.

A retail dealer who bought a large quantity of goods ostensibly to replenish his stock, but sold them at wholesale at a sacrifice, was held to be guilty under section 44 of the Act of 1867. U. S. v. Frank, 2 Biss. 263; 25 Fed. Cas. 1205.

On the facts of the case, the defendant was held to answer under section 44 of the Act of 1867. U. S. v. Geary, 4 N. B. R. 534; 25 Fed. Cas. 1272.

Under sections 1 and 7 of the Act of 1841 an intentional omission of a part of the bankrupt's property in a verified schedule was held to be perjury. U. S. v. Nichols, 4 McLean, 23; 27 Fed. Cas. 151 (1845).

Persons other than the bankrupt may conspire with the latter so as to constitute an offense under the Act of 1867 (sections 5134, 5440, R. S.). U. S. v. Bayer et al., 4 Dill. 407; 24 Fed. Cas. 1046.

Judge Dillon expressed the opinion that under the Act of 1867 (section 5132, R. S.), a person who procures the bankrupt to commit the acts therein made criminal, is subject to indictment. Ibid.

The bankrupt could be convicted of concealing assets from the assignee under the Act of 1867 without proof of a demand by the assignee. U. S. v. Smith, 13 N. B. R. 61; 27 Fed. Cas. 1170.

The defendants were charged with a conspiracy to have a bankrupt falsely pretend that the proceeds of a mortgage which he had given had been stolen. The fact was held to constitute an offense under the Act of 1867 (section 5440, R. S.). U. S. v. Swett et al., 2 Hask. 310; 28 Fed. Cas. 3. The character of proof in criminal cases under the Act of 1867 is discussed in the case cited. U. S. v. Penn, 13 N. B. R. 464; 27 Fed. Cas. 490. The repeal of the bankrupt law of 1800 was held by Justice Washington to be a bar to a prosecution under that law. U. S. v. Passmore, 4 Dall. 372; 27 Fed. Cas. 458 (1804).

Evidence given by a bankrupt on a compulsory examination cannot be used against him on a criminal proceeding. U. S. v. Prescott, 2 Dill. 405; 27 Fed. Cas. 616.

The court upheld the constitutionality of the clause of section 44 of the Act of 1867 which punishes by imprisonment a fraudulent disposition of goods obtained on credit and remaining unpaid for within three months preceding the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy. Tusey, 6 N. B. R. 284; 27 Fed. Cas. 631.

U. S. v.

In the case cited, subdivision 9 of section 5132, R. S., was held to be unconstitutional, the court holding that "an act committed within a state, whether for a good or bad purpose, or whether with an honest or criminal intent, cannot be made an offense against the United States unless it have some relation to the execution of a power of congress, or to some matter within the jurisdiction of the United States." U. S. v. Fox, 95 U. S. 670.

RULES OF PROCEDURE.

§ 30. Rules, Forms, and Orders. (a.) All necessary rules, forms, and orders as to procedure and for carrying this Act into force and effect shall be prescribed, and may be amended from time to time, by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judge Hopkins held that the forms prescribed in the general rules adopted by the supreme court under the Act of 1867 were not mandatory, but might be adapted to the circumstances of each case. In re Strachan, 3 Biss. 181; 23 Fed. Cas. 212.

Certain rules and forms under the Act of 1867, considered. In re Bellamy, 1 Ben. 390; 3 Fed. Cas. 121; 1 Ben. 426; 3 Fed. Cas. 124; 1 Ben. 474; 3 Fed. Cas. 126.

It was held that the Act of 1867 conferred no power on the United States district court to make general rules governing proceedings in bankruptcy. In re Kennedy et al., 7 N. B. R. 337; 14 Fed. Cas. 308.