FREDERIC L. GRANT SHOE COMPANY
v.
W. M. LAIRD COMPANY
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 dismissed an appeal by the Frederic L. Grant Shoe Company in a bankruptcy case, holding that when a bankruptcy proceeding involves a jury trial as of right, the resulting judgment is reviewable only by writ of error, not by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court reasoned that jury trials in bankruptcy proceedings constitute trials according to common law procedures, and therefore must follow the traditional common law method of review through writ of error rather than the equity appeal procedures otherwise available under the Bankruptcy Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Justice White,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
Without considering whether the shoe company, appellant in this court, is not concluded by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals upon the petition asking a review of the order of the District Court in bankruptcy, denying the original motion to dismiss, we do not pass upon the question presented by this appeal, as we find we are without authority to do so. Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U. S.
327. In the cited case, answering a question certified from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals' for the Sixth Circuit, it was held that a j udgment that a person is not a bankrupt, entered by a court of bankruptcy on a verdict of not guilty in a trial by jury, demanded as of right under section 19 of the bankruptcy act, was reviewable only by writ of error.
Section 25a of the Bankruptcy Act, which authorizes appeals, as in equity cases, to be taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, among other cases, from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt, ivas expressly considered, and it was held that the provision only applied to judgments adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt, “when a trial by jury had not been demanded, and where the court of bankruptcy proceeded .on its own findings of fact.” The reasoning upon which the decision was based was in substance that as in the character of proceeding under consideration the right to a trial by jury was absolute, such a trial was a trial according to the course of the common law, and judgments therein rendered are revisable only on writ of error (p. 332).
As in the case at bar a júry was demanded, the trial was before such jury, and their verdict determined the questions at issue, it follows that the record should have been brought to this court by writ of error and not by appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird Co., 212 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1909)…e. Afterwards this writ of error was brought, the taking of jurisdiction .being the only error assigned..' It already has been decided between these parties that a writ of -error, not an appeal, is the proper means of bringing the [*447] case here. 203 U. S. 502. But the defendant in error ¿aoves to dismiss on the grounds that the writ- was not sued out in time, because General Order. 36 (2), allows only thirty days for appeals; and that no bill of exceptions was filed. Neither reason is good. The statutes…
Authorities Cited
- Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1902)