governed by Bankruptcy Act, § 25, but by Court of Appeals Act of 1891, § 6; In re Breyer Printing Co., 216 Fed. 882, 133 C. C. A. 82, holding rejection of landlord's lien for rent, after landlord in possession of chattels turned them over to trustee subject to his rights, is controversy in bankruptcy, reviewable by appeal under section 24a; In re Hartzell, 209 Fed. 776, 777, 779, 126 C. C. A. 499, holding independent assertion of mortgage lien is controversy in bankruptcy reviewable under Bankruptcy Act, § 24a; In re Martin, 201 Fed. 36, 119 C. C. A. 363, order of bankruptcy court for distribution of proceeds of lands fraudulently conveyed by bankrupt and recovered by creditors in attachment suit in State court within four months of bankruptcy, is appealable under § 24a; Rode v. Phipps, 195 Fed. 418, 115 C. C. A. 316, holding final order of bankruptcy court on intervening petition of adverse claimant is reviewable by appeal under § 24a; Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw, 193 Fed. 352, 113 C. C. A. 274, holding decision denying rights of claimant in bankruptcy proceeding asserting rights under conditional sale contract and mechanic's lien is reviewable by appeal, not petition to revise.

Distinguished in Gibbons v. Goldsmith, 222 Fed. 828, 138 C. C. A. 252, holding question of law whether District Court erroneously exercised jurisdiction to determine merits of adverse claim to property of bankrupt, is bankruptcy proceeding reviewable by petition to revise under Bankruptcy Act, § 24b.

General Order No. 36, authorized under Bankruptcy Act, section 25b, requiring making and filing of finding of facts and conclusions of law separately stated, does not apply to controversy in bankruptcy appealable under section 24a.

Approved in Baker Ice Mach. Co. v. Bailey, 209 Fed. 844, 126 C. C. A. 568, holding General Order No. 36, requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law by Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal to Supreme Court in bankruptcy case, does not apply to appeal from decision on intervention in bankruptcy proceeding by vendor under conditional sale contract asserting title to property, which is controversy appealable under section 24a; In re Martin, 201 Fed. 38, 119 C. C. A. 363, holding on appeal from order in controversy in bankruptcy under Bankruptcy Act, § 24a, court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Under Wisconsin statutes, sections 2310 et seq., as construed by highest State court, chattel mortgage is void as to creditors, where mortgagor remains in possession and applies proceeds to his own use, and is void! as to trustee in bankruptcy under Bankruptcy Act, section 70a.

Approved in In re Scruggs, 205 Fed. 675, holding under lease of storehouse giving lien on leased premises for rent for whole term, rent to accrue after adjudication is not provable against bankrupt's general estate, but is provable against particular property subject to lien; In re

East End Mantel etc. Co., 202 Fed. 278, holding unrecorded chattel mortgage without delivery of possession, valid under State law, is valid against trustee in bankruptcy under act of 1910, giving trustee rights of levying creditor, where rights of creditor of mortgagor did not attach before taking of possession by mortgagee; In re Harnden, 200 Fed. 178, 180, holding under decision of New Mexico Supreme Court, chattel mortgage on retail stock of goods is not void as matter of law because mortgagor retains possession and sells in course of trade without accounting to mortgagee; In re Condon, 198 Fed. 951, person knowing of his insolvency and furnishing family with sixteen hundred dollars for month's use commits act of bankruptcy within meaning of Bankruptcy Act, c. 541, § 3a, and it is immaterial that he thought payment warranted by statute of New York exempting earnings of debtor for support of his family; Johansen Bros. Shoe Co. v. Alles, 197 Fed. 278, 116 C. C. A. 636, holding constructive fraud in conveyance of debtor's stock in trade to creditor without delivery of possession or without obligation to account for proceeds of sale, is under Missouri decisions purged by mortgagee's taking possession before creditors seize property or take steps to assert rights thereto; Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw, 193 Fed. 353, 113 C. C. A. 274, holding fact that claimant under conditional sale contract attempts unsuccessfully to foreclose mechanic's lien is not such election of remedies as to preclude it from recovering property from bankrupt's trustee; Ritchie County Bank v. McFarland, 183 Fed. 717, 106 C. C. A. 153, holding under West Virginia law conveyance of property of transitory character to secure debt, leaving property in hands of grantor authorized to sell at will, is void, although it includes other property of permanent nature; In re Ozark Cooperage etc. Co., 180 Fed. 106, 103 C. C. A. 603, holding delivery of lumber valid pledge under Rev. Stats. Mo. 1899, § 3410, and pledgee's title is good as against trustee; Dulany v. Morse, 39 App. D. C. 533, holding right of trustee under Bankruptcy Act, §§ 70e, 67a, 67b, to sue to set aside as preference under section 60a, transfer void as to creditors, under local recording act, is not affected by fact that transfer is binding between parties; Earle v. National Metallurgic Co., 77 N. J. Eq. 21, 76 Atl. 557, holding under Bankruptcy Act, § 70a (5), trustee may attackvalidity of chattel mortgage, which under State statutes could have been levied on by creditors; dissenting opinion in In re Lee, 182 Fed. 585, 589, 105 C. C. A. 117, majority holding person lending money to discharge encumbrance on property with understanding that he is to have first lien, is subrogated to rights of first encumbrancer, whose debt has been paid, not only as against borrower, but as against trustee.

Distinguished in Sexton v. Kessler & Co., 225 U. S. 98, 56 L. Ed. 1000, 32 Sup. Ct. 657, holding escrow of securities by New York banking firm to secure drafts upon foreign bank is lien on securities superior to claim of trustee in bankruptcy, although New York firm retained

control and had right to substitute other securities; Lovell v. Isidore Newman & Son, 192 Fed. 761, 113 C. C. A. 39, holding interveners in bankruptcy proceeding, claiming goods sold to them by bankrupt, having waived failure of shipper to comply with contract, were entitled to goods as against trustee in bankruptcy; Morgan Bros. v. Dayton Coal etc. Co., 134 Tenn. 280, 183 S. W. 1031, holding under mortgage by corporation of its real estate, plant, equipment, stocks, bonds, leases, together with income, issues and profits, reserving right of user in grantor until default, lien does not attach until default and taking of possession by mortgagee, and mortgage is not void as to creditors.

Validity of chattel mortgage of merchandise stock as affected by provision or agreement giving mortgagor possession with power of sale. Note, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1182.

Voidability of transfer within, pursuant to executory agreement antedating four months' period. Note, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 640.

216 U. S. 559-570, 54 L. Ed. 615, 30 Sup. Ct. 434, FRANKLIN v. UNITED STATES.

Effect of Acts of 1825, 1866 and 1898, providing that punishment of offenses in places ceded by State to United States, not specially provided for by United States law shall be by law of State making cession, is limited to criminal laws in force at time of enactment of, Federal laws and there is no delegation to States of authority to change criminal laws applicable to places over which United States has exclusive jurisdiction.

Approved in United States v. Press Publishing Co., 219 U. S. 8, 10, 21 Ann. Cas. 942, 55 L. Ed. 66, 67, 31 Sup. Ct. 212, holding New York law allowing single conviction for publication and circulation of libel affords adequate means of furnishing such offense committed on military reservation, and resort cannot be had to United States court under Act of Congress of 1898, § 2, to punish circulation as separate offense from publication; Steele v. Halligan, 229 Fed. 1018, holding Rev. Stats., § 5391, re-enacted in 1898, providing that offenses in places ceded to and under jurisdiction of United States, not specially provided for by law of United States shall be prosecuted in United States courts and receive same punishment as provided by State, refers to State laws in effect at time of Assimilation Crimes Act.

Validity and construction of Federal statutes adopting State criminal laws in places under Federal jurisdiction. Note, 21 Ann. Cas. 948.

216 U. S. 571-578, 54 L. Ed. 619, 30 Sup. Ct. 420, OSBORN v. FROYSETH, Rejection of application for homestead entry on ground that land was not open for settlement does not defeat entry if Secretary of Interior had no authority to withdraw land from settlement.

Approved in Svor v. Morris, 227 U. S. 527, 57 L. Ed. 625, 33 Sup. Ct. 385, holding title acquired by railroad or its assignee to lieu lands se

lected after homestead right had attached is held in trust for settler; United States v. Midway Northern Oil Co., 216 Fed. 806, holding order of President withdrawing oil lands in California and Wyoming from entry, whether in aid of proposed legislation or to secure supply of fuel oil for navy, is void; dissenting opinion in United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 506, 59 L. Ed. 694, 35 Sup. Ct. 309, majority upholding order of 1909 of President withdrawing oil lands from private acquisition, and holding location made upon such lands thereafter, is void.

Distinguished in Morris v. Svor, 118 Minn. 349, 136 N. W. 854, holding homesteader in possession of land when selection of indemnity land was initiated, but making no effort to acquire title under homestead law for more than twelve years after such selection is barred by laches; Morris v. Svor, 114 Minn. 305, 131 N. W. 324, holding evidence insufficient to show filing upon land in possession of homesteader prior to date of selection of indemnity land by railroad.

Where railroad fails to comply with statutory requirements in selection of lieu lands within indemnity limits of grant and its selection is rejected, subsequent selection does not relate back, and homestead entry initiated before second selection has priorty.

Approved in dissenting opinion in Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 219 U. S. 407, 409, 55 L. Ed. 273, 31 Sup. Ct. 300, majority holding railroad's right to lieu lands selected were superior to those of purchaser under Timber and Stone Act, who filed pending final decision of Secretary of Interior as to validity of selections.

Distinguished in Daniels v. Bernhard, 237 U. S. 573, 59 L. Ed. 1118, 35 Sup. Ct. 749, holding person having complied with provisions of Forest Reserve Act of 1897 to obtain lieu lands is not limited to remedy of mandamus against Secretary of Interior, but may proceed against person receiving patent.

Land actually occupied by qualified entryman with intent to claim it as homestead ceases to be public land and is not subject to selection as lieu land.

Approved in Kinyon v. Christianson, 120 Minn. 338, 339, 139 N. W. 598, 599, holding land entered by homestead entryman within indemnity. limits of railroad grant and resided upon until rejection of railroad's selection is not subject to second selection by railroad.

Distinguished in United States v. Wesely, 189 Fed. 278, holding patent issued to second applicant under Timber and Stone Act is not absolutely void where, through local land officer's mistake first application is noted on tracts and plat-book as covering another tract.

216 U. S. 579–581, 54 L. Ed. 624, 30 Sup. Ct. 423, NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. v. NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. McCUE.

Decree of State court that rate fixed by commission on single commodity is not confiscatory and refusing to enjoin enforcement of rate will

be affirmed by Federal court, but without prejudice to right of carrier to reopen case, if, after trial, it can prove that rate is confiscatory.

Approved in Missouri v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 241 U. S. 540, 60 L. Ed. 1155, 36 Sup. Ct. 715, dismissal of suit to enjoin enforcement of rate statute without prejudice does not leave matter open to extent that defendant, in action by State to recover excess fares paid during period of company's suit, can attack statute as confiscatory; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 430, 431, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1554, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, holding in absence of congressional action State may regulate intrastate rates of interstate carrier, although relations between interstate and intrastate rates are thereby disturbed; In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 307, holding fact that railroad complies for five years with order of commission establishing freight rates, does not estop it from suing to enjoin rates as confiscatory, on proof of changed conditions rendering net earnings from entire business noncompensatory; Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 184 Fed 772, holding void Minnesota acts of 1907 reducing intrastate passenger and freight rates, as necessarily burdening interstate commerce; State v. Florida etc. Ry. Co., 69 Fla. 491, 68 South. 732, granting mandamus to compel carrier to comply with Rule 19 of commission regulating intrastate freight rates; State ex rel. Railroad Commrs. v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 65 Fla. 428, 62 South. 593, refusing to enforce lower rate for particular service, where reduction in such rate further reduces receipts on entire business of carrier, which receipts do not afford reasonable return; Morgan's Louisiana etc. R. etc. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Louisiana, 127 La. 666, 53 South. 900, upholding order of commission No. 553 of 1906, establishing intrastate rates for hauling sugar-cane; Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commrs., 84 N. J. L. 474, 87 Atl. 656, upholding gas rate established by commission in territory supplied by public service gas company; Bartles Northern Oil Co. v. Jackman, 29 N. D. 250, 150 N. W. 581, holding statute imposing inspection fees upon commodities brought from other States is void in so far as fees exceed cost of inspection.

Distinguished in Love v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 185 Fed. 327, 107 C. C. A. 403, holding bill is not demurrable which alleges freight rates established by commission are confiscatory, where rates were established by about dozen orders, and bill does not allege that each order is confiscatory.

Matters to be considered on issue of reasonableness of rates charged for carriage of goods. Note, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 8, 10. Returns to which public service corporations entitled. Note, L. R. A. 1915A, 55, 66.

216 U. S. 581, 54 L. Ed. 625, 30 Sup. Ct. 698, GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. v. NORTH DAKOTA-MINNEAPOLIS ETC. R. Co. v. NORTH DAKOTA.

Not cited.

1