Case Name: KNAPP et al. v. MILWAUKEE TRUST CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1908-04-14
Citations: 162 F. 675
Docket Number: Nos. 1,422, 1,425
Parties: KNAPP et al. v. MILWAUKEE TRUST CO. et al.
Judges: Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHESAAT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 675–678

Head Matter:
KNAPP et al. v. MILWAUKEE TRUST CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
April 14, 1908.
Rehearing denied June 4, 1908.)
Nos. 1,422, 1,425.
1. Bankettptcy— Oedees — Mode op Review.
Where a bankrupt’s creditor answered his trustee’s petition to sell certain chattels and claimed chattel mortgage liens thereon, an order holding the chattel mortgages void was reviewable by appeal.
TEd. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 915.]
2. Chattel Mortgages — Validity—Power op Sale — Retention by Mortgagor.
Under the Wisconsin law, a chattel mortgage allowing the mortgagor to dispose of the avails of the mortgaged property and appropriate the same to his own use, provided only that the interest on the bond secured was paid and a sinking fund amounting to $500 per quarter, or $2,000 per annum, is provided for, and declaring that, when the mortgagee shall consent to waive the requirements as to the sinking fund, then the mortgagor shall keep up the interest on the bond secured and may apply all the balance of the proceeds to his own uses and purposes, is void.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 9, Chattel Mortgages, §§ 393-401, 410.]
3. Bankruptcy — Review—Questions Not Raised at Trtal.
Where the capacity of a bankrupt’s trustee to sue on account of alleged defects in the petition and proofs on which the adjudication of bankruptcy was made was not challenged at the trial, such question could not be raised on appeal.
[Ed. 'Note. — Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 O. C. A. 9.]
4 Same — Want op Jurisdiction.
On appeal from a District Court’s decree in a controversy arising in bankruptcy proceedings, the only want of jurisdiction available to appellant, when raised for the first time in the Court of Appeals, is the District Court’s want of jurisdiction to render the decree appealed from.
On Rehearing.
5>. Same — Appeal to Supreme Court — Findings by Circuit Court op Appeals.
General Bankruptcy Order 36, § S (S9 Fed. xxxvi, 32 C. G. A. xxxvi), declaring that, in every case in which either party is entitled by the act to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the court from whieh the appeal lies shall, at or before the time of entering its decree, make and file a finding of the facts and its conclusions of law thereon, stated separately, and that the record to the Supreme Court on such appeal shall consist only of the pleadings, judgment, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, does not require a Circuit Court of Appeals of its own motion to ascertain and determine in advance of its decision whether a question is raised on which a party is entitled to the allowance of an appeal to the Supreme Court, but such right, if claimed, should be called to the court’s attention in advance of decision, by a request for findings in the event of an adverse ruling on the question claimed to be appealable.
Appeal from, and Petition to Review and Revise Order of, the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Mark Breeden, Jr., for appellants.
A. W. Fairchild, for appellees.
Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHESAAT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On petition of creditors the Standard Telephone ik Electric Company was adjudged a bankrupt. Knapp, on coming into court to answer the trustee's petition to sell, claimed chattel mortgage liens on part of the estate in the hands of the trustee. The trus-1ee contended that the chattel mortgages were void, and the court so found. Knapp has appealed, and has also filed a petition to review and revise. The petition is dismissed, as the matter is properly reviewable on appeal.
The mortgages were clearly void for the reasons set forth at large in the opinion of the district judge. In re Standard Telephone & Electric Co. (D. C.) 157 Fed. 106.
Appellant insists that the decree in this litigation between him and the trustee must be held void on account of alleged defects in the petition and proofs on which the adjudication of bankruptcy was made. No challenge of the trustee's capacity was made before or during the trial in the court below, and so no ruling was made which appellant can bring- before us for review. He claims, however, that it is a question of want of jurisdiction in the District Court. The only want of jurisdiction which appellant would have the riuht to require us to look into would be the District Court's want of jurisdiction to render the decree appealed from. This decree is of the class the District Court-has authority to enter. The parties to this decree are of the class the District Court has authority to hear. The District Court's jurisdiction to enter this decree was no more dependent than a state court's would have been, upon the rightful appointment of the trustee.
The decree is affirmed.