SCHWEER
v.
BROWN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a bankruptcy proceeding in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the court ordered two respondents to pay two thousand dollars to the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate, but the respondents appealed directly to the Supreme Court claiming the District Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case did not fall within the category of cases permitting direct appeal to the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act of 1891, and that any challenge to the District Court's jurisdiction over the merits should have been brought through petition to the Circuit Court of Appeals under the bankruptcy law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice
: This was a summary proceeding in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in bankruptcy, requiring the’ payment to the trustee in bankruptcy of the sum of two thousand dollars as part of the assets of the bankrupt’s estate. In return to a rule, one of the respondents alleged that he had paid the money over to the other and denied the jurisdiction of the court. The other, Mrs. Schweer, denied that she had or ever had had any money belonging or due to the estate, and denied jurisdiction. The matter was heard before a referee, who made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ordered the return of the money. It was then carried to the District Court and there heard de novo. The District Court sustained the referee and entered decree for the payment of the money to the trustee. Thereupon an appeal was taken directly to this court'on the ground that the case fell within the first of the classes of cases enumerated in section five of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891. - But that class only includes cases-where the question is as to the jurisdiction of courts of the United States as such, and the question has to be certified. That was not the question raised here, and none such was certified. And it is settled that the District'Court, had jurisdiction to determine whether any adverse-claim to the money was asserted at the time the petition was filed. Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1; Louisville Trust Company v. Comingor, 184 U. S. 18.
If the court erred in retaining jurisdiction on the merits, the remedy was by petition to the Circuit Court of Appeals under § 246 of the bankruptcy law. Holden v. Stratton, 191 U. S. 115.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co., Inc. v. Fox, 264 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1924)…Co., 126 Fed. 875; In re Rudnick & Co., 158 Fed. 223; In re Ransford, 194 Fed. 658, 663; In re Columbia Shoe Co., 289 Fed. 465. Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U. S. 204. Compare Noble v. Union River Logging R. R. Co., 147 U. S. 165, 173; Schweer v. Brown, 195 U. S. 171; In re Kramer, 218 Fed. 138, 141. In re Weinger, Bergman & Co., 126 Fed. 875; In re Eddy, 279 Fed. 919. Compare In re Rockford Produce & Sales Co., 275 Fed. 811. Also In re Yorkville Coal Co., 211 Fed. 619; In re Goldstein, 216 Fed. 887; In re Gold…
-
Harrison v. Chamberlin, 271 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1926)…, without the consent of the adverse claimant; but resort must be had by the trustee to a plenary suit. Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1, 15; Louisville Trust Co. v. Comingor, 184 U. S. 18, 24; Jaquith v. Rowley, 188 U. S. 620, -623; Schweér v. Brown, 195 U. S. 171, 172; Galbraith v. Vallely, 256 U. S. 46, 48; Taubel Co. v. Fox, 264 U. S. 426, .433; May v. Henderson, 268 U. S. 111, 115; Board of Education v. Leary (C. C. A.), 236 Fed. 521, 524; Lynch v. Roberson (C. C. A.), 287 [*194] Fed. 433, 435, 437. Howev…
-
Taylor v. Voss, 271 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1926)…revision will lie to bring up for review the question of law whether the court of bankruptcy has jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of such controversy in a summary proceeding. Louisville Trust Co. v. Comingor, 184 U. S. 18, 25; Schweer v. Brown, 195 U. S. 171, 172; Galbraith v. Vallely, 256 U. S; 46, 48; Taubel Co. v. Fox, 264 U. 3. 426, 429. An analogous rule was also applied in Weidhorn v. Levy, 253 U. S. 268, 270. ' There the trusteeUi&d filed in the bankruptcy suit a bill in equity against an adverse…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1902)
- Louisville Tr. Co. v. Comingor, 184 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1902)
- Holden v. Stratton, 191 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1903)