Case Name: BAKER ICE MACH. CO. v. BAILEY. In re GRANT BROS.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-12-11
Citations: 209 F. 844
Docket Number: No. 3,991
Parties: BAKER ICE MACH. CO. v. BAILEY. In re GRANT BROS
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 844–844

Head Matter:
BAKER ICE MACH. CO. v. BAILEY. In re GRANT BROS
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
December 11, 1913.)
No. 3,991.
Bankruptcy (§ 468 )—Appellate Proceedings—Controversies Arising nr Bankruptcy Proceedings.
General Order in Bankruptcy No. 36 (89 Fed. xiv, 32 C, C. A. xxxvi), requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law to be stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals on appeals to the Supreme Court in bankruptcy cases, does not apply to appeals from the decision on a petition of intervention by an adverse claimant to property, which is a controversy arising in a bankruptcy proceeding, within Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 24a, 30 Stat. 553 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3431), as to which appeals are governed by the general statutes.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 930; Dec, Dig § 468.
Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]
Appeal from the District Court of the .United States for the District of Kansas; John C. Pollock, Judge.
In the matter of Grant Bros., bankrupts. The Baker Ice Machine Company appealed from an order denying its petition to recover property. On reversal of the” order, J. F. Bailey, trustee, requests findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Denied.
See, also, 209 Fed. 603.
H. C. Brome and Clinton Brome, both of Omaha, Neb., for appellant.
W. S. McClintock and A. D. Quant, both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before HOOK and GARLAND, Circuit Judges, and VAN VALKENBURGH, District Judge.
For other case» see same topic & 5 number In Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
HOOK, Circuit Judge.
This was an intervention by the machine company in a bankruptcy proceeding, asserting title and asking possession of machinery sold' the bankrupt under a contract of conditional sale. It was a controversy arising in a bankruptcy proceeding, within section 24a of the Bankruptcy Act. Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U. S. 296, 24 Sup. Ct. 690, 48 L. Ed. 986. The trustee having prevailed below, the machine company came here by appeal. We recently decided the cause for the appellant, and the appellee, desiring to appeal to the Supreme Court, now requests findings of fact and conclusions of law according to General Order in Bankruptcy 36 (89 Fed. xiv, 32 C. C. A. xxxvi). The request is denied. The general order does not apply to appeals under section 24a. Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co., 216 U. S. 545, 30 Sup. Ct. 412, 54 L. Ed. 610; Houghton v. Burden, 228 U. S. 161, 33 Sup. Ct. 491, 57 L. Ed. 780.