The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-05-02
MANY CASES HEARD
BY JUDGE OF j. S.
Final Settlement Of the Famous
Breese Embezzlement Case
From North Carolina.
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

2 The United States Circuit Court Of
Appeals convened yesterday at y o'clock
TO hold Its May term. Circuit Judges
Golf and Prltchard and District Judges
Waddill and Boyd are In ATTENDANCE.
The court announced and handed down
It's opinion in fifteen cases and entered
orders denying rehearings IN four cases.
In this latter class, the case Of VIII
liam z. Breeseh vs. United States,f which
was decided al the. last term IN FAVOR
OF Breese I, tho court denied the petition
OF the United States for rehearing. This
finally settles this famous case when
has been pending In the Federal Courts
for more than seven years, the govern
ment charging the plaintiH IN error win
embezzling and Disappointing the 1u'lus
Of the Asheville National Bank Of which
Breese was president.
The following cases from this city VIII
be in the call for argument to-day:
No. G11-S. II. Cottrell and Sons, plain
tiff in error, vs.. Smokeless Fuel Com
pany, defendant In error. In error TO the
United States Circuit Court at Rtch-
mond The case comes upon motion OF
the plaintiff In error for writ OF certl-
orari. TO be argued by Fl. r. Pollard
Richmond, Va, for the plaintiff N error
and by Alex. II. Sands and Conway
Sands, OF the ftlCHl!lpllu pd' ~ wv ~
PENDANT In error.
No. 633--Nary E. TIanlin ct al, petit
TONERS, appellants VS.. Virginia Passen-
ger and Power Company ct al, appellees;
appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States at Richmond, va. 10 10
argued by willis B. Smith, OF Richmond,
for the appellants, and by Frank ".
Christian, Of Christian and Christian, ana
A. L. Holiday and Henry Taylor al OF
Il . no. nal
Court adjourned until this morning at
10 o'clock
Important Opinion.
One OF the most Important opinions to
the lawyers In this circuit announced at
this term was prepared by Judge Prltch-
ard In the case Of James NJ Henrie. PEI
uiaioner, VS.. Jock b. Henderson and
Union Trust Company which cAIne from
the District Court at Clarksburg w. Va
Judge Pritchnrd states IN his opinion IN
mart las follows. THUS 1t will be seen
That this is a. controversy between two
parties, neither of whom was a party
to the proceedings In bankruptcy under
which the property was sold. 1t Is q
controversy which does not IN tho slight
est degree effect tho creditors OF Hen
derson, the bankrupt, nor Is the trustee
in any wise affected. Stripped Of all ex-
traneous matters, It appears to be nm
effort on the part of Henderson TO COM
pel specific performance OF contract
relating to the sale Of land. There Is
no provision which gives tho bankruptcy
court Jurisdiction to hear and determine
controversy OF this kind.
The object of tho bankruptcy law Is to
afford tho means by which the creditors
of the bankrupt may secure an equltapie
and fair distribution of the bnnkrl'pts
property, ETC., and the act contemplates
| that any collateral questions growing out
az the settlement of the bnnkrnpt's estate
nav he heard and determined III that
court. But hero we have parties who arc
| contendlng about u matter which IL IN
| no wny related 10 or connected win me
affairs of the bankrupt. Under these
circumstances we fnil to understand tho
| theory on which this proceeding was NJ
| stituted y,
II is insisted that the court below had
| ancillnry Jurisdiction to the extent OF
raatroininR the trustee from making q
deed for the property IN question uht'l
The RESPONDENT could assert his rlghts IN
| ihe proper forum, This position IS I'M
| tonnble because the court WAS "llnou'
| jurisdiction In the first instance There
| fore. there was nothing on which 70 hasn
| anclllary jurisdiction
Il is we'll settled that. courts cannot
exercise ancillary jurisdiction IN eases
,vhercln they do not possess jurisdiction
IN the flrst instance. Ancilary jurlsdlc-
| lion presupposcs primary turls.lotloh'
and can only be Invoked III a'd OF same
Tho petition for review was therefore
dismissed for want of jurisdiction m tHo
lower court. w, aa,u a.,
Tho court sustained judge Waddill I'm
the admiralty case of the steamship
"Xyvnndotte." appellant, VS. Peter
Wrights and Sons, the opinion helne
written by Judge Purnell,
Judge Waddill has made quite reputa-
ton as an admiralty judge since his ar.
poIntment as district Judge, and Is well
Sustaining the reputation OF MS prede'
! cessor, the late Judge Hughes VINO wpas