Swift Company v. Noble Hoover

• Decision Date: 04 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 101,101
• Citation: 242 U.S. 107,61 L.Ed. 175,37 S.Ct. 56
• Parties: SWIFT & COMPANY et al., Plffs. in Err. and Appts., v. J. NOBLE HOOVER
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

242 U.S. 107

37 S.Ct. 56

61 L.Ed. 175

SWIFT & COMPANY et al., Plffs. in Err. and Appts.,

v J. NOBLE HOOVER.

No. 101.

Submitted November 14, 1916.

Decided December 4, 1916.

Messrs. Arthur A. Birney, H. Winship Wheatley, and Lucas P. Loving for plaintiffs in error and appellants.

Mr. Edward F. Colladay for defendant in error and appellee.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

This case is brought here by appeal and allowance of writ of error, from a decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, adjudging Hoover not a bankrupt. Counsel for the appellee and defendant in error urges that the appeal and writ be dismissed, but does not argue the question of the jurisdiction of this court; but, as such matters are noticed by this court whether specially urged by counsel or not, as it concerns our jurisdiction, we proceed to consider it. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 28 L. ed. 462, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510.

The provisions of the Bankruptcy Act for consideration in this connection are:

'Section 24. The Supreme Court of the United States, the circuit courts of appeals of the United States, and the supreme courts of the territories, in vacation in chambers and during their respective terms, as now or as they may be hereafter held, are hereby invested with appellate jurisdiction of controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings from the courts of bankruptcy from which they have appellate jurisdiction in other cases.

'The Supreme Court of the United States shall exercise a like jurisdiction from courts of bankruptcy not within any organized circuit of the United States and from the supreme court of the District of Columbia.

* * * * *

'Section 25. That appeals, as in equity cases, may be taken in bankruptcy proceedings from the courts of bankruptcy to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, and to the supreme court of the territories, in the following cases, to wit: (1) from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt; . . .' [30 Stat. at L. 553, chap. 541, Comp. Stat. 1913, §§ 9608, 9609.]

The same provision as to the review by this court of controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings is carried into the Judicial Code, § 252 [36 Stat. at L. 1159, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 1229], in which provision in made for the review in this court of controversies arising in bank- ruptcy proceedings in the supreme court of the District of Columbia.

It is apparent from reading these sections of the statute that a direct appeal to this court from the supreme court of the District of Columbia is allowed only in controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings, and not from the steps in a bankruptcy proceeding. The nature of such controversies has been frequently considered in decisions of this court, and needs little discussion now. Such controversies embrace litigation which arises after the adjudication in bankruptcy, sometimes by intervention, the parties claiming title to property in the hands of the trustee, or other actions, usually plenary in character, concerning the right and title to the bankrupt's estate. Such proceedings as the present one, resulting in a decree refusing to adjudicate the defendant a bankrupt, are but steps in a bankruptcy proceeding, and not controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings within the meaning of the statute. First Nat. Bank v. Klug, 186 U. S. 202, 46 L. ed. 1127, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 899.

The decisions of this court in Tefft, W. & Co. v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114, 56 L. ed. 118, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67, and Munsuri v. Fricker, 222 U. S. 121, 56 L. ed. 121, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 70, are decisive of this point. In the first of these cases there was an attempt to prosecute a direct appeal to this court from the district court of the United States for Porto Rico, where the proceeding was based upon a claim in bankruptcy. It was there held that an order of the bankruptcy court of Porto Rico, disallowing the claim, was not a controversy arising in a bankruptcy proceeding within the meaning of the statute. The contention that such action, based upon a claim filed in a bankruptcy...