Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/195/171/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:08:09+00:00

Document:
Where the question is whether a district court sitting in bankruptcy could proceed in a summary way in the particular instance, the jurisdiction of the United States court as such is not in question, and § 5 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, has no application.
Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1; Louisville Trust Co. v. Comingor, 184 U. S. 18, approved on the point that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine in the first instance whether a summary proceeding can be maintained. If it errs in so proceeding the remedy is under § 24b of the Bankruptcy Law.
ground that the case fell within the first of the classes of cases enumerated in section five of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891. But that class only includes cases where the question is as to the jurisdiction of courts of the United States as such, and the question has to be certified. That was not the question raised here, and none such was certified. And it is settled that the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether any adverse claim to the money was asserted at the time the petition was filed. Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1; Louisville Trust Company v. Comingor, 184 U. S. 18.
If the court erred in retaining jurisdiction on the merits, the remedy was by petition to the circuit court of appeals under § 24b of the Bankruptcy Law. Holden v. Stratton, 191 U. S. 115.

References: § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 v.