APPENDIX. LEADING CASES, WITH STATEMENTS AND SYLLABI, WHICH AROSE IN OR RELATE TO THE INSULAR AND ISTHMIAN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO ALASKA, HEARD AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN JUNE 1, 1911, AND JUNE 1, 1913. OFFICIAL OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ADVISING THE PRESIDENT AND HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, AND EXPOUNDING THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND WITH INDIAN TRIBES, AND THE PUBLIC LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, BETWEEN MARCH 4, 1911, AND MARCH 3, 1913. EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENTS, AND TO CIVIL AFFAIRS IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PORTO RICO, AND CUBA, INCLUDING CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS PARTAKING OF THE CHARACTER OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, FROM MARCH 4, 1898, TO MARCH 3, 1913. PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PORTO RICO. HAWAII, ALASKA, GUAM, TUTUILA, AND CUBA ON DECEMBER 1, 1913. 399 DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. Supreme Court of the United States. TEFFT, WELLER & Co. v. MUNSURI. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico. (222 U. S., 114.) No. 22. Argued October 30, 31, 1911. Decided December 4, 1911. SYLLABUS. There is no appeal to this court from an order disallowing a claim made by the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico sitting as the bankruptcy court. The express provisions in section 25 of the bankruptcy act for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by implication exclude the right to exercise jurisdiction over a subject not delegated by that or some other statute. An order of the bankruptcy court disallowing a claim is a step in the proceeding, and not a controversy arising in the proceeding within the meaning of section 24a. (Coder v. Arts, 213 U. S., 234; Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U. S., 296.) The fact that no method of review is prescribed by the statute in certain cases does not justify this court in disregarding the statute and assuming jurisIdiction where none exists. That this court has assumed jurisdiction in a case in which its jurisdiction passed unchallenged is not controlling in a_subsequent case when the jurisdiction is challenged. (Armstrong v. Fernandez, 208 U. S., 324, qualified and limited.) The provisions for review of judgment of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico in section 35 of the act of April 12, 1900 (31 Stat.. 85, c. 191), do not affect the exclusive modes of review specifically provided for in the bankruptcy act. Opinion by White, Chief J. No dissenting opinion. The facts involve the jurisdiction of this court of appeals under the bankruptcy act. In 1907 the commercial firm of "Successores de José Hernaiz " was adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt. Tefft, Weller & Co. and those who are here conjointly appellants with that firm presented their claims against the firm, and they were allowed by the referee. In October, 1907, as the result of proceedings, whose initiation it is unnecessary to consider, the court held that one Julian Munsuri was not a limited but a general partner of the bankrupt firm, and hence was generally liable for its debts. Munsuri subsequently moved the 7345°-S. Doc. 173, 63-1—26 401 referee to vacate the allowance previously made of the claims which had been presented by the appellees and to disallow said claims. This motion was based on alleged settlements of the claims which it was asserted had been made with Munsuri in 1903. The referee denied the motion, because he concluded that the asserted settlements, although they had been in form made, had been procured by the fraud of Munsuri, and therefore were not binding. Munsuri, by petition for review, sought to reverse the action of the referee. The court on February 9, 1909, passing on the petition for review, reversed the action of the referee. It was held that the settlements relied upon by Munsuri were binding. An order was made directing that the previous allowance of the claims be vacated, and that the claims be disallowed. Thereupon the court filed its "findings of fact and conclusions of law," which were recited to have been made "in pursuance of general order in bankruptcy No. 36, page 3." The attorney for the creditors then petitioned for the allowance of an appeal to this court from the judgment and order "whereby the referee's report denying the motion to disallow the claims of said creditors is reversed and set aside, and the said claims are disallowed." At the time the appeal was allowed (the one which is now under consideration) assignments of error were filed assailing the action of the court in disallowing the claims, and the merit of these assignments has been elaborately insisted on in the argument at bar. As appellate jurisdiction over courts of bankruptcy is expressly provided for in the bankrupt law, including the cases or classes of cases in which this court has authority to review the action of courts of bankruptcy, we must turn, at least primarily, to that act in order to test the correctness of the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction which has been made. Now the subject of the power to review the orders of bankruptcy courts disallowing claims in bankruptcy proceedings is in express terms provided for by the bankrupt act in section 25a as follows: * APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR. a. That appeals, as in equity cases, may be taken in bankruptcy proceedings from the courts of bankruptcy to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, and to the supreme court of the Territories, in the following cases, to wit (3) From a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim of five hundred dollars or over. Such appeal shall be taken within ten days after the judgment appealed from has been rendered, and may be heard and determined by the appellate court in term or vacation, as the case may be. Supreme Court of the United States. MUNSURI v. FRICKER. Error to the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico. (222 U. S., 121.) No. 21. Argued October 27, 30, 1911. Decided December 4, 1911. SYLLABUS. Tefft, Weller & Co. v. Munsuri, ante, page 114, followed to effect that the express provisions for review contained in the bankruptcy act are controlling, and that review by this court under section 24b of an order disallowing claims is not authorized by the act. Opinion by White, Chief J. No dissenting opinion. Dismissed. |