Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/224/145/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-10-18 02:13:54
Document Index: 646642118

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 25', '§ 6', '§ 25', '§ 25', '§ 25', '§ 6']

CALNAN CO. V. DOHERTY, 224 U. S. 145 (1912) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 224 > CALNAN CO. V. DOHERTY, 224 U. S. 145 (1912)
CALNAN CO. V. DOHERTY, 224 U. S. 145 (1912)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 224 U. S. 145
Calnan Co. v. Doherty, 224 U.S. 145 (1912)
Where the prerequisites for an appeal to this Court specified in subparagraph 1 of § 25b of the Bankruptcy Act do not exist, and the circuit court of appeals does not make the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by clause 3 of General Order 36, the appeal must be dismissed. Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89.
Appellate jurisdiction over a ruling of the circuit court of appeals in a bankruptcy matter may not be exercised by this Court by virtue of § 6 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114.
Appeal from 174 F.2d 2 dismissed.
The Calnan Company was adjudicated a bankrupt on May 13, 1909. Eight days afterwards, an appeal was prayed for and allowed from that decision. In the assignment of errors, in addition to alleging that the court erred in adjudicating it a bankrupt, the Calnan Company alleged that the court erred in finding that the alleged creditors owning claims for $713.86 and $963.75, respectively, were creditors holding valid provable claims against it. In many forms of statement it was also alleged that the court erred in finding that the company had made an unlawful preferential payment to a creditor. The circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment. 174 F.2d 2. Within thirty days after the denial of a petition for a rehearing, this appeal was taken.
to this Court. The contention, however, is untenable. By § 25(a) of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the Bankruptcy Act appeals in bankruptcy proceedings are authorized to the circuit courts of appeals in three specified cases, two being: "(1) from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt," and "(3) from a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim of $500 or over." It is manifest that the ruling made in the course of the determination of an issue as to alleged bankruptcy upon a subordinate issue as to whether or not the petitioning creditors held "provable" claims is not a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim within the meaning of the section, and it is also evident that a decision by the court of appeals upon such a ruling is not a "final decision . . . allowing or rejecting a claim under this act," within the meaning of § 25b. See, in this connection, Duryea Power Co. v. Sternbergh, 218 U. S. 299, 218 U. S. 300. Aside, however, from these considerations, the prerequisites for an appeal to this Court specified in subparagraph 1 of § 25(b) do not exist, nor could the appeal be entertained, inasmuch as the court of appeals did not make the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by clause 3 of General Order 36. Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89, 207 U. S. 90.
The further contention that jurisdiction may be exercised by virtue of § 6 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 828, c. 517, is shown to be without merit by our recent decision in Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114.