CONRO
v.
CRANE
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.
The Supreme Court held that appeals do not lie to the Supreme Court from circuit court decisions exercising supervisory jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings, because a bankruptcy case constitutes one continuous suit from commencement to final settlement, and all intermediate orders and motions within that proceeding are subject only to revision within the bankruptcy court itself, not appellate review. The Court affirmed that parties who submit to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to protect their interests in the estate become parties to the suit and are bound by judicial determinations made in the legitimate course of the proceeding.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
It must now be considered as settled that appeals do not lie to this court from the decisions of the circuit courts in the exercise of their supervisory jurisdiction under the bankrupt law. In Wiswall et al. v. Campbell et al., 93 U. S. 347, we held that “ a proceeding in bankruptcy, from its commencement to its close upon the final settlement of the estate, is but one suit. The several motions made and acts done in the bankrupt court in the progress of the cause are . . . but parts of the suit in bankruptcy, from which they cannot -be separated.” And again: “ Every person submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the bankrupt court in the progress of the cause, for the purpose of having his rights in the estate determined, makes himself a party to the suit, and is bound by what is judicially determined in the legitimate course of the proceeding.” And in Sandusky v. National Bank, 23 Wall. 293, it was decided,that “any order made in the progress of the cause may be subsequently set aside and vacated, upon proper showing made, provided rights have not become vested under it which will be disturbed by the vacation.”
These principles are decisive of this case. The rights of the parties grow out of a sale made by the court under the authority of sect. 5065, Rev. Stat. The bids were received by the provisional assignee; but the court determined which should be accepted, and gave directions as to the transfer of titlé. Clearly, then, what was done both as to the first and second ,'sale was in the course of the bankruptcy proceeding, and part of that suit. As such, it was subject to revision in the Circuit Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Both Hodgkins and Conro & Carkin submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court to the extent that was necessary for the completion of their respective purchases. Conro & Carkin were parties to the proceeding by which the sale to Hodgkins was set aside, and that to them made. Having been in court when the order under which their claim was made, they can properly be brought in to answer a motion to set it aside. Such a motion would not be a new suit, but a new proceeding in the old suit in bankruptcy, and therefore not subject to revision here upon appeal.
This was evidently the. understanding of the parties at the time; for the original petition of Hodgkins and Crane was filed in the District Court sitting in bankruptcy, and the petition for review purports, on its face, to be filed under sect.. 4986, Rev. Stat., which confers the supervisory jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1904)
-
Holden v. Stratton, 191 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1903)…at. 517, 518, c. 176, § 2; Rev. Stat. § 4986, and it was settled tinder that act that appeals to this court did not lie 'from the decisions of the Circuit Courts in the exercise of that jurisdiction. Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65; Conro v. Crane, 94 U. S. 441. The ruling is‘decisive here unless the present act elsewhere otherwise provides. But this it does not do, the special and sum-r mary character of thé revision contemplated being substantially the same as in the prior act, and the provision for appe…
-
Norris v. Camp, 144 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1944)…626, 60 P. 226, 228. Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Gas Co., 300 U.S. 131, 136, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557. February 13, 1939. Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Gas Co., 300 U.S. 131, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557; Conro v. Crane, 94 U.S. 441, 443, 24 L.Ed. 145; Sandusky v. First Nat. Bank of Indianapolis, 90 U.S. 289, 293, 23 Wall. 289, 23 L.Ed. 155; Mulligan v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, 8 Cir., 129 F. 2d 438, 440. See Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co…
Authorities Cited
- Wiswall v. Campbell, 93 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1876)