The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-12-02
 Court Fails to Settle
 Difference. LEGAL STATUS OF TWO JUDGES DEFINED Appellate Court Dismisses Refefee's
 Petition. Holds That 1t Lacks Juraadietien Ia Matters of Baskrurtcy--steeis
 and Birch Are Left
 in Doubt.

New Orleans, Dec. 1.--(special.f- Judge Oscar R. HundIey and Judge Thomas G. Jones are both Judges of the Northern District of Alabama with coordinate powers and when either sits alone. he has absolute powers. de- cided the United States Circuit Court of Appeals today in lengthy opinion. important as anecting the controversy which has been in progress. between the two Judges, and which has fe- suited in sharp clashes between them. The court ruled that a Court of Ap- peals has no Jurisdiction to supervise the actions of a. court in bankruptcy, and. therefore, the action of Judge Hundley in ordering the appointment of Alexander c. Birch as eon5oint' ref cree in bankruptcy with N. |. Steele, seems likely to stand. Birch was ap- pointed by Judge Jones.
 Hence, while Judge HondieY loses his contention that his eppointment as Judge of the Northern District of Alabama meant that Judge 1onesN jurisdiction should be confined to Mid- dle Alabama, he seems to have c&r- ried his point with regard to the ref cree in bankruptcy.
 Three Questions Decided
 Three important questions of law are decided in the courts opinion. They are. as stated by the deeisions.
 First--Is the statute making the Judge of the Middle District also Judge of the Northern District of Alabama. stil1 in force? This the Court of Ap- peals decrees In the affirmative.
 Second-Does the bankruptcy act of 1898 require the concurred action Of both the Judges to make valid orders bankruptcy? The court auswers this
 Thtfd--.On the facts stated in tho pe- titon, should the court superintend and revise the action of the court of bank ruptey in the appointment and removal of referees? The court decides it should not; that it has no Jurisdiction over bankruptcy courts.
 The case appealed which brought into the Superior Court the question of conflict in authority between the two Alabama Judges in that of Alex C. Birch, petitioner. versus, N. L.. Steele. respondent. The petitioner was ap- pointed referee in bankruptcy for Jefferson, Walker Bibb. Blount, Shelby, Lamar and St. Clair Counties in the Northern District. by Judge Jones. N L. Steele already had been ap- pointed referee by Judge Hundley.
 Judge Jones's order provided that the. already appointed Steele should have the even numbered cases, while Birch should have the odd numbered cases Steele then claimed Birch was charged from office by Judge Hundley's order. He claimed Judge Hundley ex- ceeded his authority in thus counter manding the order of Judge Jones appointing him.
 History of Alabama Court.
 The decision of the Court of Appeals goes back to the. very beginning of the system in Alabama. By act of Aug. !, 1S4S, Alabama was divided into three districts, called Southern, Middle and Northern districts. At first, there was but one District Judge. Aug. 9, 1886, an act authorized the appointment of District Judge for the Southern Dis trict, the first Judge, who formerly had supervised three districts, being left the Middle and Northern Districts as limits of his Jurisdiction. Judge John Bruce was the original man ap- pointed. with Jurisdiction over the en- tire State.
 Kon. Thomas c. Jones. Dec. 20, 1901. was appointed successor to Judge Bruce, as Judge Of the~. Middle and
 
 Feb. 25 District Judge for the Northern Judicial District of Alabama was appointed, Oscar R. HundIev re- ceiving the appointment April 10. 1907.
 The court holds that this act of April ! 10, 1907, does not repeal the act xivine, Judge Jones Jurisdiction over two dis tricts. It certainly does not fn exact language. and the only question Is says the court. does it by Implication?
 It often has been held by the Su- preme court that repeals by imnIics. ton are not favored. It is the rinnue~- tioned rule, if 1t is possible to recon cile two statutes, one will not be held to repeal the other.
 The Court of Appeals. in it's opinion, holds these two statutes are not ir- reeoncilable, that the first judge is sole judge of the Middle District, and a judge of the Northern District while the second judge (Hundley) also is judge of the Northern District. There are no words to justify any other con- struction, says the opinion. It would seem impossible for one judge alone to do all the work inthe disputed Northern District. It evidently was the intention of Congress that the two judges should l assist each other. Two coordinate | judges often hold office in the same dis. l trict in other parts of the country and l the fact that the exercise of concurrent | powers may have caused an unusual | condition likely to be detrimental to | the public good can make no difference. | and cannot extend the Jurisdiction or change the opinion of the Court of Ap- peals.
 Not Necessary to Concur.
 Tn taking up the second contention of the petitioner. the opinion says: z Tt Is contended by the learned coun- sel for the petitioner that it requires the concurrent action of both judges to exercise the administrative power of | of appointment of referee to hold of- flee for 8 stated period. and the same action for the removal of a [ This the Court of Appeals de- nies. saying the action of one judge Is a bankruptcy court being a court of one judge.
 Finally, holding that the Court of Ap- peals has no right to control the ac- lions of a bankruptcy court, the peti- Hon that the Court of Appeals superin-