CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, AND TRUSTEE OF RHEINSTROM,
v.
LUEDERS

U.S. | 1915-10-25
No. 445
239 U.S. 11 Supreme Court of the United States (1915) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 60 L. Ed. 119 · 36 S. Ct. 1 · 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1533 · SCDB 1915-066
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

The I. Rheinstrom & Sons Company's bankruptcy creditors challenged the validity of a Kentucky statute that granted liens to certain parties, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a 1915 federal statute made Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in bankruptcy cases final and appealable to the Supreme Court only by certiorari petition, not by direct appeal, and the statutory language clearly applied regardless of whether the case involved constitutional or state law questions.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds,

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Justice McReynolds,

by direction of the court.

The I. Rheinstrom & Sons Company was adjudged a bankrupt in April, 1912. Liens upon its property were claimed by appellees under a Kentucky statute which appellants (general creditors) maintained contravened the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Overruling the Referee, the District Court allowed the liens (207 Fed. Rep. 119) and this action was approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals, March 2, 1915, in an opinion which expressly upheld the validity of the statute (221 Fed. Rep. 829). Appellees have moved to dismiss the present appeal.

Section 4, Act of Congress, approved January 28, 1915, c. 22, 38 Stat. 803, 804, provides: “That.the judgments and decrees of the circuit courts of appeals in all proceed iugs and cases arising under the bankruptcy Act and in all controversies arising in such proceedings and cases, shall be final, save only that it shall be competent for the Supreme Court to require by certiorari, upon the petition of any party thereto, that the proceeding, case, or controversy be certified to it for review and determination, with the same power and authority as if taken to that court by appeal or writ of error; but certiorari shall not be allowed in any such proceeding, case, or controversy unless the petition therefor is presented to the Supreme Court within three months from the date of such judgment or decree.”

Manifestly, the words of the quoted section include the decree below and inhibit an appeal therefrom. It is argued, however, that they should be so construed as to exclude causes requiring interpretation of state statutes and application of the Federal Constitution and thereby limited in effect to the supposed purpose of Congress to relieve this court only from the necessity of reviewing bankruptcy cases which “involve complicated questions of fact rather than of law.” .We see no reason to doubt that the plain language of the enactment aptly expresses the fixed legislative intent. The appeal is accordingly

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Meurer Steel Barrel Co., Inc. v. Martin, 1 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1924)
    …rovision he is bound by it too. Such provisions in contracts otherwise valid (that is, where there is no lack of consideration), have not been permitted to invalidate the contracts. Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 240 U. S. 581, 36 S. Ct. 1, 60 L. Ed. 811, L. R. A. 1917B, 580; McCall v. Wright, 198 N. Y. 143, 91 N. E. 516, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 249; Corbet v. Oil City Fuel Supply Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 80. This is particularly true of oil and gas leases to which a patent license bears re…
  • William R. Staats Co. v. Sec. Tr. & Sav. Bank, 243 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1917)
    …neral provisions of the Judicial Code. This statute manifested the purpose of Congress to relieve this court from the necessity of considering cases of this character, except when brought here by the writ of certiorari. Central Trust Co. v. Lueders, 239 U. S. 11; Shattuck, Trustee, v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 239 U. S. 637. It follows that the motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction must be granted. Appeal dismissed.…
  • Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. v. The United States, 476 F.2d 1327 (Ct. Cl. 1973)
    …d in implementation of the statutory intent. The most comprehensive judicial analysis of the term “manufacturing” exposed by research is found in In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co., 207 F. 119 (E.D.Ky.1913), aff’d 221 F. 829 (C.A. 6), appeal dismissed, 239 U.S. 11, 36 S.Ct. 1, 60 L.Ed. 119 (1915), where in concluding that the elaborate processing of Maraschino cherries constituted manufacturing with regard to establishing creditor priorities under a bankruptcy statute, the court painstakingly sifted and analo…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw