Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Chapman v. Bowen

Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U.S. 89 (1907)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1907-11-11
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. The motion to dismiss was'rested on two grounds: .(1)- That appellant had failed to comply with clause 3 of general order in bankruptcy XXXVI; (2) That the case was not appealable to this court. Clause 3 of general order XXXVI reads as follows: “In every case in which either party is entitled by the act to take an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the court from which the appeal lies shall, at or before the time of entering its judgment or decree, make and file a finding of the facts, and its conclusions of law thereon, stated separately; and the record transmitted to the Supreme Court of the United States on such an appeal shall consist only of the pleadings, the judgment or decree, the finding of facts, and thé conclusions of law.” No such finding of facts and conclusions of law was made in this case, nor was the court requested to make such finding. -The appeal was a general appeal, and the entire record was sent up.. The omission cannot be supplied by reference to the opinion as is attempted in argument.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Chapman v. Bowen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Bankruptcy Law — Jurisdiction Under section 25(b) of the Bankruptcy Act, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court from a final decision of a court of appeals allowing or rejecting a claim only in two cases and no others: where the amount in controversy exceeds two thousand dollars and the question involved is one that might have been taken on appeal or writ of error from the highest court of a State to the Supreme Court, or where a justice of the Supreme Court certifies that determination of the question involved is essential to a uniform construction of the Act throughout the United States.
  2. Bankruptcy Law — Jurisdiction Where neither ground of review under section 25(b) of the Bankruptcy Act is present — there being no justice's certificate and no question that could have been brought to the Supreme Court from a state court of last resort — the appeal must be dismissed, even if the requirements of general order XXXVI had been satisfied.
  3. Civil Procedure — Record on Appeal Where a finding of facts and conclusions of law, stated separately, are required by general order XXXVI, the omission of such a finding cannot be supplied by reference to the court's opinion, and the record transmitted on appeal consists only of the pleadings, the judgment or decree, the finding of facts, and the conclusions of law.
  4. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Review of State Court Decisions Supreme Court review of a state court decision is not available where no treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question, no state statute or authority was challenged as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and no title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Constitution, laws, treaties, or authority of the United States was decided against the claimant.
  5. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Review of State Court Decisions A decision resting on well-settled principles of general law broad enough to sustain it without reference to the federal statute is not Reviewable under section 709 of the Revised Statutes; and where the party asserting the federal right prevailed below, the opposing party's bare denial of his claim cannot be relied on to invoke that statute.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion to dismiss was'rested on two grounds: .(1)- That appellant had failed to comply with clause 3 of general order in bankruptcy XXXVI; (2) That the case was not appealable to this court.

Clause 3 of general order XXXVI reads as follows:

“In every case in which either party is entitled by the act to take an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the court from which the appeal lies shall, at or before the time of entering its judgment or decree, make and file a finding of the facts, and its conclusions of law thereon, stated separately; and the record transmitted to the Supreme Court of the United States on such an appeal shall consist only of the pleadings, the judgment or decree, the finding of facts, and thé conclusions of law.”

No such finding of facts and conclusions of law was made in this case, nor was the court requested to make such finding. -The appeal was a general appeal, and the entire record was sent up.. The omission cannot be supplied by reference to the opinion as is attempted in argument. British Queen Mining Company v. Baker Silver Mining Company, 139 U. S. 222, and cases cited; Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71, 74.

But if the case was not appealable, the appeal must be dismissed, even though clause 3 had been complied with.

The bankruptcy act provides, sec. 25, b:

“From any final decision of a court of appeals, allowing or rejecting a claim under this act, an appeal may be had under such rules and within such time as may be prescribed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases and no other:

“1. Where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, and the question involved is one which *92 might have been taken on appeal or writ of error from the highest court of a State to the Supreme Court of the United States; or

“2. Where some justice of the Supreme Court of the United States shall .certify that in his opinion the determination of the ■question or questions involved in the allowance or rejection of such claim is essential to a uniform construction of this act throughout the United States.”

As to paragraph 2, there was no such certificate here;-and as to paragraph 1, we are not able to perceive that a writ of . error from the highest court of a State to this court could be' maintained. No validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question; nor the validity of a statute of, or ah authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of repugnancy to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the' United- States; nor was any title, .right, privilege or immunity claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and decided against. •

■ The decision below proceeded' on well-settled principles of general law, broad.enough to sustain it without reference to provisions of the bankruptcy act. And, moreover, even if it could be held that by his claim Bowen asserted any right within the meaning of section 709, Rev. Stat., the decision was in his favor, and the trustee’s bare denial of the claim could not be relied on under that statute. New Jersey City & Bergen Railroad Company v. Morgan, 160 U. S. 288.

Appeal dismissed.