페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

and was its president. His relatives, during the active life of the corporation, made large loans to the company. The claims for these advances were assigned to Gaines shortly before the bankruptcy, and he made proof of the same in the bankruptcy proceeding. Subsequently the Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford Company, the appellant, a creditor of the bankrupt estate which had proved its claim, filed an intervening petition asking for the re-examination and disallowance as against it of the Gaines claim. The ground for the relief prayed was that Gaines was equitably estopped from collecting his claim against the bankrupt estate to the prejudice of the petitioner, because of misrepresentations and concealment of material facts as to the financial condition of the bankrupt, made by him as an officer of the company, upon which the intervening company relied to its injury. The referee found that Gaines had made the representations complained of, and that although intentional fraud on his part was not shown, yet, if he had been the owner and holder of the notes upon which he had proved at the time of the making of the statements, they were of such a character as to cause him to be equitably estopped from asserting the claims to the prejudice of the intervener. As, however, it was found that Gaines had no interest in the claims embraced in his proof of debt at the time the representations were made by him, because he had acquired the claims by assignments subsequent thereto, the referee concluded that Gaines was entitled to as sert the rights of his assignors, and was not estopped as against the Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford Company. In reviewing the action of the referee, the district court disapproved the same, and, on June 22, 1911, directed that the claim of Gaines, in so far as it represented demands against the bankrupt which were in existence at the time the representations were made by Gaines, should be postponed to the claim of the intervener. Neither party appealed from this order.

review, to the circuit court of appeals, complaining of the mode of distribution which had been adopted to execute the decree of June 22, 1911. That the controversy was thus limited and that no issue was raised or contention made concerning the decree of June 22, 1911, itself, which had become final, is certain. Thus, in August, 1912, in announcing its decision, the circuit court of appeals thus stated the controversy before it: "There is no occa sion to go back of the order of June 22, 1911, or to inquire into its propriety. No appeal was taken or petition to review filed, and appellant here concedes that it lays down the rule for distribution in this case, and announces that he has no criticism to make as to the propriety of that rule. That is to say, although in his opinion the facts did not warrant the adoption of such a rule, he is willing to accept it and let the case be disposed of in conformity to its terms."

The court then considered whether the distribution ordered by the referee and approved by the district court accorded with the order of June 22, 1911, and held that it did not, and directed distribution of $12,250, the balance of dividends in the hands of the trustee, in accordance with views expressed in the opinion. 196 Fed. 357. The Wynkoop Company thereupon prosecuted this appeal, and a motion has been made to dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction.

That the motion to dismiss must be

granted is manifest from the statement we have made. Whatever may have been the nature of the original controversy presented by the intervention of the Wyn. koop Company, the acquiescence of both parties in the order of June 22, 1911, settled that controversy, and the questions remaining were purely administrative, concerning as they did merely the carrying out of the order according to its true intent and purpose. This being the case, the question whether the order of June 22, 1911, was correctly interpreted by the refThereafter, on August 3, 1911, the referee and the district court in the distribueree made an order that the dividend on tion directed by the subsequent administhe sum of $199,000 of the claim of Gaines,trative order is not one concerning an albeing the portion representing the indebted-lowance or rejection of a claim within ness at the time of the misrepresentations, § 256 of the bankrupt act, but is a matshould be paid to the intervener. On peti- ter arising in the administration of the tion to review, this order was affirmed by bankrupt estate, which we are not empow the district court. Gaines then carried ered to review. the matter, by both appeal and petition for Appeal dismissed.

FOLLOWING ARE MEMORANDA

OF

CASES DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1912,

WITHOUT OPINIONS AND NOT ELSEWHERE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN THIS EDITION.

ADDISON SHIP-Y-TUCK, Plaintiff in Error, | 1165, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, and cause rev. UNITED STATES. [No. 70.] manded to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Cali fornia.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. Messrs. F. T. Woodburn and A. E. Crane for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr for defendant in

error.

December 2, 1912. Per Curiam: Judg. ment affirmed upon the authority of Hallowell v. United States, 221 U. S. 317, 55 L. ed. 750, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 587.

CHAN KAM, Appellant, v. LUTHER C. STEW-
ARD and H. Edsell. [No. 374.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Northern District of
California.

Messrs. Carroll Cook and Corry M. Stadden for appellant.

The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr for appellees.

December 2, 1912. Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed on the authority of Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460, 56 L. ed. 1165, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

YUK PING, Alias Lee So Mui, Appellant, v. LUTHER C. STEWARD and H. Edsell. [No. 375.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

Messrs. Carroll Cook and Corry M. Stadden for appellant.

E. A. BLOUNT et al, Petitioners, v. GEORGE
E. Downs et al. [No. 809.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Messrs. J. C. McReynolds and George C.
Greer for petitioners.

Messrs. Hiram Garwood and Maxwell
Evarts for respondents.
December 2, 1912. Denied.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK et al. [No. 5, original.]

The Attorney General for complainant. Mr. James M. Hunt for respondents. December 2, 1912. Dismissed without prejudice, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Bullitt for the complainant.

MARIUS CALMELS, Appellant, v. SAMUEL W. BACKUS, Commissioner of Immigration, etc. [No. 793]; VICTOR VINOL, Appellant, v. SAMUEL W. BACKUS, Commissioner of Immigration, etc. [No. 794]; LEOPOLD CALMELS, Appellant, v. SAMUEL W. BACKUS, Commissioner of Immigration, etc. [No. 795]; MARIA LOUISE CALMELS, Appellant, v. SAMUEL W. BACKUS, Com. missioner of Immigration, etc. [No. 796]; and VALERIE CALMELS, Appellant, v. SAMUEL W. BACKUS, Commissioner of Immigration, etc. [No. 797].

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

Mr. Corry M. Stadden for appellants. The Attorney General for appellee. December 2, 1912. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Corry M. Stadden for the appellants.

The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr for appellees.

December 2, 1912. Per Curiam: Judg. ment affirmed on the authority of Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460, 56 L. ed.

216

F. B. WILLIAMS CYPRESS COMPANY, LIMIT-| GASPAR CUE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM

ED, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE OF
LOUISIANA. [No. 760.]

C. COTTON et al., Executors, etc., et al.
[No. 88.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.

Mr. Charlton R. Beattie for plaintiff in Texas.

error.

Mr. Charles T. Wortham for defendant lants. in error.

December 9, 1912. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 529, 55 L. ed. 838, 840, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699, and cases cited.

DAN KOVOLOFF, Petitioner, V. UNITED
STATES. [No. 841.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

FARMERS & MECHANICS BANK OF VANDALIA,
ILLINOIS, Petitioner, v. HARRISON W.
MAINES. [No. 850.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Bernard B. Selling for petitioner.
Mr. John C. Donnelly for respondent.
December 9, 1912. Denied.

WORK MINING & MILLING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DR. JACK POT MINING COMPANY. [No. 855.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Messrs. Charles S. Thomas, Henry C. Hall, William H. Bryant, and George L. Nye for petitioner.

Messrs. Benjamin C. Bachrach and John F. Geeting for petitioner.

The Attorney General and the Solicitor costs, pursuant to the Tenth Rule. General for respondent.

December 9, 1912. Denied.

Mr. William V. Hodges for respondent.
December 9, 1912. Denied.

BYRON E. VAN AUKEN et al., Petitioners, v. MONASH-YOUNKER COMPANY. [Nos. 860 and 861.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of

Petition for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Mr. C. Clarence Poole for petitioners.
Mr. Thomas A. Banning for respondent.
December 9, 1912. Denied.

Mr. A. Seymour Thurmond for appel

No appearance for appellees.

December 10, 1912. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the Tenth Rule, and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.

ED. BROWN et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. FRANK M. POWERS, Judge, et al. [No. 94.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.

Mr. Benjamin I. Salinger for plaintiffs in

error.

No appearance for defendants in error.
December 13, 1912. Dismissed with

[blocks in formation]

GEORGE FRED WILLIAMS, Executor of the | FRANK F. LAMB, Plaintiff in Error, v.

SAMUEL B. BAKER. [No. 267.]

Estate of Amey M. Starkweather, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOSEPH U. STARKWEATHER, Administrator, etc. [No. 199.] In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island.

Mr. James A. Halloran for plaintiff in

December 16, 1912. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580, 585, 37 L. ed. 856, 859, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Miller v. Cornwall R. Co. 168 U. S. 131, 42 L. ed. 409, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U. S. 299, 49 L. ed. 210, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; Farrell v. O'Brien (O'Callaghan v. O'Brien) 199 U. S. 100, 50 L. ed. 107, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 727.

error.

Mr. Edward D. Bassett for defendant in costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

error.

LUTCHER & MOORE LUMBER COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM H. KNIGHT et al. [No. 810.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. A. P. Pujo for petitioners.
No appearance for respondents.
December 16, 1912. Denied.

CHARLOTTE CASSIDY, Petitioner, v. SILVER KING COALITION MINES COMPANY. [No. 839.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. John A. Shelton for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
December 16, 1912. Denied.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. James H. Vahey for petitioner.
Mr. Lewis Miles for respondent.
December 16, 1912. Denied.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.

Mr. George S. Ramsey for plaintiff in

WILLIAM W. WISHART, etc., Petitioners v.
SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL AB-
CANUM. [No. 872.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Messrs. A. S. Worthington and J. Roy
Dickie for petitioners.

error.

No appearance for defendant in error.
December 18, 1912. Dismissed with

Mr. Joseph A. Langfitt for respondent.
December 16, 1912. Denied.

SEABOARD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COM-
PANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. GUSTAVE
MONTELEONE. [No. 110.]
In Error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Louisiana.

Mr. Edgar H. Farrar for plaintiff in

error.

Messrs. Benjamin Rice Foreman and Anthony J. Rossi for defendant in error.

December 19, 1912. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation.

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, & ST. PAUL RAIL-
WAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v.
MICHAEL KILEY. [No. 114.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin.

Messrs. Burton Hanson and C. H. Van Alstine for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error. December 19, 1912. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the Tenth Rule.

B. ZAVELO, Plaintiff in Error, v. LEICHT MAN, GOODMAN, & COMPANY. [No. 300.]

FLORENCE A. HARPER, Petitioner, v. Louis error.
L. TAYLOR. [No. 856.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama.

Mr. Oscar R. Hundley for plaintiff in

Mr. Samuel A. Putman for defendant in error.

December 23, 1912. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Chappell Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co. 172 U. S. 465, 43 L. ed. 517, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265, and cases cited.

C. E. MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. UNITED
STATES. [No. 845.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Hosea B. Moulton for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant
Attorney General Harr for respondent.
December 23, 1912. Denied.

SKEELE COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, V. GOHEN C. ARNOLD, Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc. [No. 866.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Mr. Nicholas W. Hacker for petitioner. Mr. C. Andrade, Jr., for respondent. December 23, 1912. Denied.

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. F. Zimmerman for petitioners.
Mr. Frank S. Masten for respondents.
December 23, 1912. Denied.

MRS. BESSIE SCHINNERRER et al., Petitioners, V. MONONGAHELA RIVER CONSOLIDATED COAL & COKE COMPANY et al. [No. 874.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

JOHN M. CONROY et al., Petitioners, v. PENN ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY. [No. 879.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Mr. Paul Synnestvedt for petitioners. Messrs. Edward Rector and J. M. Nesbit for respondent.

December 23, 1912. Denied.

« 이전계속 »