Frederic L. Grant Shoe Company v. W. M. Laird Company

Supreme Court

Frederic L. Grant Shoe Company v. W. M. Laird Company

203 U.S. 502, 27 S. Ct. 161, 51 L. Ed. 292, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1614

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 17, 1906

Docket63

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 203 U.S. 502 (Frederic L. Grant Shoe Company v. W. M. Laird Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frederic L. Grant Shoe Company v. W. M. Laird Company, 203 U.S. 502, 27 S. Ct. 161, 51 L. Ed. 292, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1614 (1906).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *505 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *505 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 U.S. 502, 27 S. Ct. 161, 51 L. Ed. 292, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederic-l-grant-shoe-company-v-w-m-laird-company-scotus-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack