Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/234/263/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:36:46+00:00

Document:
Under clause 20 of § 2 of the Bankruptcy Act as added by the amendment of June 25, 1910, the bankruptcy courts have ancillary jurisdiction over persons and property within their respective territorial limits in aid of a trustee or receiver appointed in any court of bankruptcy.
Property of the bankrupt, when seized by an ancillary receiver or trustee, is held by virtue of the terms of the Bankruptcy Act to be turned over to the court of original jurisdiction, and no right can be acquired in it by assignment subsequent to the petition which can defeat this purpose.
Under subd. d of § 60 of the Bankruptcy Act, attorney's fees for services in contemplation of bankruptcy are specifically provided for, and are subject to revision in the court of original jurisdiction and not elsewhere. In re Wood and Henderson, 210 U. S. 246.
The seizure of property of the bankrupt by an ancillary receiver is a summary proceeding, and not a plenary suit, and the decision of the bankruptcy court in the jurisdiction of seizure that an intervenor claiming by virtue of an assignment of the bankrupts made after the petition and in payment of attorney's fees must assert the claims in the court of original jurisdiction is an administrative order, and the order of the circuit court of appeals affirming the same is not reviewable in this Court.
A motion to dismiss an appeal from the circuit court of appeals will not be denied as premature because the record has not been printed if the record of proceedings in the district court is here and this Court is sufficiently advised as to the situation of the case to dispose of it without doing injustice to the parties. National Bank v. Insurance Co., 100 U. S. 43.
Appeal from 211 F. 326 dismissed.
classes of bankruptcy matters, are stated in the opinion.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal of Lazarus, Michel, & Lazarus, interveners in a certain bankruptcy proceeding in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where the intervening petition was dismissed (205 F. 413), which order was affirmed on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (211 F. 326). The interveners now attempt to bring the case to this Court by appeal on the ground that the judgment of the circuit court of appeals was not final in the proceeding.
as temporary receiver of that court, and directed that all the property be turned over to him, to be transmitted to the trustee or trustees in bankruptcy of A. Musica & Son, elected and qualified in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, to be disposed of under and subject to the orders of that court.
proceeding of the bankrupts' property, found, as was this, in possession of those admittedly holding it for the bankrupts, and to hold the property until the qualification of the trustee, or until the bankruptcy petition should be dismissed, if that should happen. Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188; Mueller v. Nugent, supra. Prior to the amendment of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 838, c. 412, this Court had held that, in cases where the bankruptcy court of original jurisdiction could itself make a summary order for the delivery of property to the trustee or receiver, the court of ancillary jurisdiction could do so (Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U. S. 102), and by clause 20, added to § 2 by the amendment of June 25, 1910, the bankruptcy courts were specifically given ancillary jurisdiction over persons or property within their respective territorial limits in aid of a trustee or receiver appointed in any court of bankruptcy. Under this amendment, there can be no question that the district court in Louisiana had authority to appoint a receiver, and to take summary proceedings for the restoration of the bankrupts' estate, which was in the custody of people having no right to it, in order that the same might be turned over to the bankruptcy court having jurisdiction for administration. Under the circumstances here shown, there can be no question that this authority was properly exercised in this case.
of the parties and the seizure of the property. Whatever rights they had are asserted to arise by virtue of the assignments made April 1, 1913, and after the filing of the original petition in bankruptcy.
For an attorney fee for services to be rendered in contemplation of bankruptcy, the act makes specific provision in subdivision d of § 60, and the amount thus attempted to be used in contemplation of bankruptcy proceedings is subject to revision in the court of original jurisdiction, and not elsewhere. See In re Wood and Henderson, 210 U. S. 246.
The contention of the appellants, and the proposition upon which they rely to sustain jurisdiction in this Court, is that, by their intervention in the proceeding in the United States district court in Louisiana, they initiated a controversy in the bankruptcy proceeding which is appealable to this Court from the circuit court of appeals, as are ordinary cases in equity where original jurisdiction does not rest on diverse citizenship entirely (Judicial Code, § 128). To maintain that proposition, Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U. S. 296; Coder v. Arts, 213 U. S. 223; Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co., 216 U. S. 545; Houghton v. Burden, 228 U. S. 161, and cases of that character are cited. In those cases, it was held that controversies arising in bankruptcy, in the nature of plenary suits, concerning property claimed by others than the bankrupt, do not come under the special provisions of the Bankruptcy Act governing petitions for review and appeals, but take the course of ordinary cases in equity, and are not final in the circuit court of appeals where other cases of a similar character would not be.
have spoken, under § 24a, are appealable like other equity cases. See In re Loving, 224 U. S. 183. In this case, the merely ancillary jurisdiction invoked in the seizure of this property in the hands of those holding it for the bankrupts was in a mere summary proceeding in bankruptcy, and its character could not be changed or its jurisdiction enlarged, by the attempted intervention of Lazarus, Michel, & Lazarus under alleged assignments of the property, made after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy proceedings in the original case. We think the district court was right in holding, and the circuit court of appeals right in affirming its decision, that whatever claim Lazarus, Michel, & Lazarus had under the circumstances here shown must be asserted in the court of original jurisdiction. The attempted intervention in the ancillary proceeding did not give jurisdiction over a controversy in bankruptcy appealable under the Judicial Code to the court of appeals, and thence to this Court. This conclusion must result in the dismissal of the attempted appeal here.
It is contended, however, that this motion is premature, because the record in this case has not been printed. It is true that ordinarily such motions, made before the record is printed, must be accompanied by a statement of facts upon which they rest, or by printed copies of so much of the records as will enable the court to understand the case. Under the present practice, it is permissible to file the record printed in the court below, and we have a printed transcript of the proceedings in the district court. In this printed record, matters which the briefs do not dispute are shown, and we think we are sufficiently advised as to the situation of the case to dispose of it now without doing injustice the the parties. National Bank v. Insurance Co., 100 U. S. 43.

References: § 2
 § 60
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 60
 § 128
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 v.