Sandusky v. National Bank

Mr. William Tod Otto, in support of his motion, argued that the supervisory jurisdiction vested in the Circuit Court of the United States, by the first clause of the second section of the Bankrupt Act, had been fully considered by this court and its exemption from any appellate control determined in several well-known cases;1 that these cases decide that f om a decree of the Circuit Court, rendered in exercising such jurisdiction, no appeal lies to this court; that such jurisdiction, by the terms of that clause, extends to 'all cases and questions arising under the act, except when special provision is otherwise made;' and that no special provision is made for any appellate jurisdiction over the finding and decision of a District Court on a petition in involuntary bankruptcy. Mr. J. Harper, contra, argued that the petition of Sandusky 'for a review of the proceedings' in his cause and to vacate the decree of bankruptcy therein, 'and for other relief,' gave to the petition the character of a 'bill of review,' and made a 'case in equity;' that such a case when taken into the Circuit Court was taken there under the eighth section of the Bankrupt Act, giving an 'appeal' from the District to the Circuit Court, and not under the second section, which gave to the Circuit Court a general revisory jurisdiction over the District Court, under which section, confessedly by all, no appeal would lie; just as if, on the other hand, the case was in the Circuit Court under the eighth section, and as a 'case in equity,' an appeal confessedly of all would lie to this court under the act of Congress of 1803,2 which enacts that 'from all final decrees in equity rendered in any Circuit Court in any cases of equity' . . . jurisdiction shall exist to review them.