Case Name: WARREN et al. v. TENTH NAT. BANK et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1871-10-19
Citations: 29 F. Cas. 286
Docket Number: 
Parties: WARREN et al. v. TENTH NAT. BANK et al.
Judges: (WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge)
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 29
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
Case No. 17,201.
WARREN et al. v. TENTH NAT. BANK et al.
[9 Blatchf. 193.]
Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
Oct. 19, 1871.
Bankrupt Act — Petition op Review.
Even if this court can. in a suit in equity, brought in the district, court by an assignee in bankruptcy, to set aside an alleged preference averred to have been obtained in violation of 1 lie bankruptcy act of March 2d, 1SG7 (14 Stat. 517), review, before a final decree is made in flip cause by the district court, an interlocutory order made by that court therein, such review can lie had only by means of an appeal, under the eighth section of the act. and cannot be had by means of a petition of review under the second section of the act.
[See Cases Nos. 17,200 and 17,202.]
This was a suit in equity [by Richard War-Ten and Edward Rowe, assignees in bankruptcy] brought in the district court, to set aside nn alleged preference, which it was averred had been obtained by the defendants the Tenth National Bank, in violation of the bankruptcy net, by means of a judgment and an execution .against the bankrupts. The defendants moved, in the district court, for an order directing ® trial by a jury of issues to be framed in the suit. That court denied the motion. [Case unreported.] The defendants then petitioned this court, before a final hearing of the cause in the district court, for a review by this court, and a reversal, of the order of the district court denying the motion for a trial of issues by a jury, claiming the exercise of such power of review under the second section of the •bankruptcy act of March 2d, 1867 (14 Stat. 518).
Alexander Blumenstiel, for plaintiffs.
H. E. Tremain, for defendants.

Opinion:
THE COURT
(WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge)
dismissed the petition, on the ground that, even if this court could review, before a final decree had been made in the cause by the district court, an interlocutory order made by that court therein, the review could be had only by means of an appeal, under the eighth section of the bankruptcy act, and could not be had by means of a petition of review under the second section of said act.