claim of five hundred dollars 8

cation of a discharge, Thompson v. Mauzy, C. C. A., 174 Fed. 611; Re White, C. C. A., 248 Fed. 115.

7 Postlethwaite v. Hicks, C. C. A., 165 Fed. 897; Re Irwin, C. C. A., 174 Fed. 642; Re Mueller, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 711; Adams v. Deckers Valley Lumber Co., C. C. A., 202 Fed. 48; Re Lane Lumber Co., C. C. A., 217 Fed. 546; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Elliotte, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 567; King Lumber Co. v. National Exch. Bank, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 946; Re Craig Lumber Co., C. C. A., 266 Fed. 692. But see Vindel v. Holgate, C. C. A., 221 Fed. 342. An order upon a petition for the reconsideration of a claim previously allowed is appealable. Kiskadden v. Steinle, C. C. A., 203 Fed. 375. It has been said: that the words "debt or claim," an order or judgment allowing which is appealable, refer only to claims that are presented for proof against estates in bankruptcy. Holden v. Stratton, 191 U. S. 115, 118, 48 L. ed. 116, 118. Where the debt or claim affected was of the value of $500 or more it was held that orders were appealable; which allowed or denied priority to claims upon applications in which the validity of the claims themselves were in dispute, Re Cosmopolitan Power Co., C. C. A., 137 Fed. 858; Re Creech Bros. Lumber Co., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 8; even when the debt was admitted and the only dispute was over the right to a priority; Cunningham v. German Ins. Bank, C. C. A., 103 Fed. 932, 935; Re Roche, C. C. A., 101 Fed. 956; Re Soudan Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 113 Fed. 804; Re Doran, C. C. A., 154 Fed. 467; see Ritchie County Bank v.

McFarland, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 715. Re Chandler, C. C. A., 184 Fed. 887; Wuerpel v. Commercial Germania Tr. & Sav. Bank, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 269, certiorari denied, Coleman & Co. v. Tawas Co., 250 U. S. 668, 40 Sup. Ct. 14, 63 L. ed. 1198. Re Leterman, Becher & Co., C. C. A., 260 Fed. 543, contra, Re Rouse, Hazard & Co., C. C. A., 91 Fed/ 96; Re Worcester County, C. C. A., 102 Fed. 808, 814; Gaudette v. Graham, 164 Fed. 311; and orders which disallowed claims because of a failure to surrender preferences, Livingstone v. Heineman, C. C. A., 120 Fed. 786; Dickson v. Wyman, C. C. A., 111 Fed. 726, Re First Nat. Bank of Louisville, C. C. A., 155 Fed. 100; Cooper v. Miller, C. C. A., 203 Fed. 383.

8 See Re Irwin, C. C. A., 174 Fed. 642. The pecuniary limit, namely five hundred dollars, to the debts or claims, judgments allowing or rejecting which are appealable, has reference to the amount that is allowed or rejected; and where a claim, which exceeds five hundred dollars, is allowed in part and in part rejected, neither the allowance or the rejection reaching the prescribed amount, there can be no appeal. Gray v. Grand Forks Mercantile Co., C. C. A., 138 Fed. 344. Cf. Re Cosmopolitan Power Co., C. C. A., 137 Fed. 858; Union Nat. Bank v. Neill, C. C. A., 149 Fed. 720. An appeal was entertained from an order allowing a claim for more than the jurisdictional amount and sustaining separate liens each of which was less than this although the only controversy was as to the validity of the liens. Stuart v.

Britton Lumber Co., C. C. A., 227 Fed. 49. It has been held that an order allowing a fee to an attorney, although less than $500, Re Irwin, C. C. A., 174 Fed. 642, cannot be reviewed by a petition for revision.

9 30 St. at L. 553, § 25; Ogden v. Gilt Edge Consol. Mines Co., C. C. A., 225 Fed. 723.

10 Emerson v. Castor, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 29.

11 Henderson v. Morse, C. C. A., 235 Fed. 518. See infra § 668.

12 Ibid., 24. For appeals to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, see D. C. Code § 226, supra, § 69.

13 It has been held that the following orders may be revised by a petition of review: a summary order requiring an adverse party, First Nat. Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 198 U. S. 280, 49 L. ed. 105; Courtney v. Shea, C. C. A., 225 Fed. 358; a State receiver, Hecox v. Rollestone, C. C. A., 164 Fed. 823; State of Missouri V. Angle, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 644, contra, Hinds v. Moore, C. C. A., 134 Fed. 221; or the bankrupt, Fisher v. Cushman, C. C. A., 103 Fed. 860; Re Mertens, C. C. A., 142 Fed. 445; Re Shidlovsky, C. C. A., 224 Fed. 450; Henkin v. Fousek, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 285; in possession of prop

erty or a fund, to deliver or pay the same to the trustee, or the bankrupt to sign a paper, such as the endorsement of a license, Fisher v. Cushman, C. C. A., 103 Fed. 860; including an order which directs the commitment of the parties against whom it is directed until he has obeyed; Kirsner v. Taliaferro, C. C. A., 202 Fed. 57. An order directing members of a bankrupt partnership to schedule and surrender their individual property; Dickas v. Barnes, C. C. A., 140 Fed. 849. An order granting or denying a claim of exemptions; Holden v. Stratton, 191 U. S. 115, 48 L. ed. 116; Re Youngstrom, C. C. A., 153 Fed. 98. An order reopening or refusing to reopen an estate that has been closed: Re O'Connell, C. C. A., 137 Fed. 838; Re Graff, C. C. A., 150 Fed. 997. An order upon the application of a widow for her right to dower in the estate of a bankrupt, who died after the adjudication; Re McKenzie, C. C. A., 142 Fed. 383. An order selling the bankrupt's land free of the wife's right of dower, Kelly v. Minor, C. C. A., 252 Fed. 115. An order upon the application of a trustee authorizing the sale of real estate and the bringing in of third persons asserting liens upon the same; Re McMa

hon, C. C. A., 147 Fed. 68. An order directing the distribution of the proceeds of a sale by the trustee and determining priority of different claims therefrom, Morgan v. First Nat. Bank of Mannington, C. C. A., 145 Fed. 466. Contra, Cunningham v. German Ins. Bank, C. C. A., 103 Fed. 932, 935. An order requiring a bidder at a sale in bankruptcy to pay the balance of the purchase price, Re Reilly, C. C. A., 258 Fed. 121. An order fixing the compensation of the referee, Kinkead v. J. Bacon & Sons, C. C. A., 230 Fed. 362. An order in an omnibus proceeding brought to determine conflicting rights of reclamation. Re Pierson, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 519. An order denying a petition by a trustee to recover dividends, where the facts are not in dispute. Nelson v. Heckscher, C. C. A., 219 Fed. 682. An order in a proceeding to determine whether upon the uncontradicted facts a previous order confirming the accounts of a trustee was authorized. Re Kuhn Bros., C. C. A., 234 Fed. 277. An order refusing leave to intervene to contest an adjudication of bankruptey, Ogden v. Gilt Edge Consol. Min. Co., C. C. A., 225 Fed. 723. An order authorizing the trustee to borrow money and to complete a contract made by the bankrupt, Re John W. Farley & Co., C. C. A., 227 Fed. 378. An order directing the distribution of the money thus earned. Ibid. An order directing the vacation of a decree made by the referee upon a bill of equity which had not been referred to him. Weidhorn v. Levy, 253 U. S. 268, 40 Sup. Ct. 534, 64 L. ed. Fed. Prac. Vol. III-87

supra, § 638. It has been held that commitments in contempt proceedings may be reviewed by petitions for revision. Re Cole, C. C. A., 144 Fed. 392; s. c., C. C. A., 2d Ct., 163 Fed. 180, 183; Re Goodrich, C. C. A., 2d Ct., 184 Fed. 5, 7; Kirsner v. Taliaferro, C. C. A., 4th Ct., 202 Fed. 51; Horton v. Mendelsohn, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 185; Henkin v. Fousek, C. C. A., 8th Ct., 267 Fed. 557. Contra, Morehouse v. Pacific Hardware & Steel Co., C. C. A., 9th Ct., 177 Fed. 337, 339. But when part of the punishment is a fine payable to the United States a writ of error is the proper remedy. Brown v. Detroit Tr. Co., C. C. A., 9th Ct. 193 Fed. 622. Supra, § 438. Where an order directed that a trustee be committed to jail unless he filed an account on or before a certain date a petition for revision filed prior to such day was dismissed as premature. O'Conor v. Sunseri, C. C. A., 184 Fed. 712. Upon a petition to revise an order confirming a sale of land in which the bankrupt claimed a homestead, the court reviewed the allowance of a claim the liability upon which affected the decision. Pindel V. Holgate, C. C. A., 221 Fed. 342. The Circuit Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit refused to entertain a petition to revise an order in an application under the Bankruptcy Act of 1867. Cresta v. Maxwell, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 448.

14 Re Chotiner, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 813; Re Horowitz, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 106. It has been held that an order referring to a master the issues upon a petition should be reviewed by a petition to revise. Re

clad Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 190 Fed. 320. Pending an appeal from a dismissal of the petition in voluntary bankruptcy, the District Court refused to discharge a receiver previously appointed and also refused to direct that he pay for the support of the alleged bankrupt in a sanitarium, when it appeared that the latter's wife held property which her husband had transferred to her. Re Ward, 194 Fed. 179. It has been held: that the failure to procure a citation and to file a bond are not jurisdictional requirements; and that leave to file these after the expiration of the statutory time may be granted, Columbia Iron Works v. National Lead Co., C. C. A., 64 L.R.A. 645, 127 Fed. 99; Lockman v. Lang, C. C. A., 132 Fed. 1; but see Norcross v. Nave & McCord Merc. Co., C. C. A., 101 Fed. 796; or defects therein may be cured by amendment after the time limited for an appeal; Re T. E. Hill Co., C. C. A., 148 Fed. 832; Hill v. Western El. Co., C. C. A., 214 Fed. 243, 245 citing Foster's Fed. Pr., 3rd ed., $ 160, 161; cf. infra, §§ 699-702; provided that the appeal has been otherwise duly taken within the statutory period; but that the omission of a citation cannot be cured, nor new parties who do not voluntarily appear, Hill v. Western El. Co., C. C. A., 214 Fed. 243, 245, brought in after the expiration of the first term, at which the appeal can be heard. Gray v. Grand Forks Mercantile Co., C. C. A., 138 Fed. 344. See Nazima Trading Co. v. Martin, C. C. A., 164 Fed. 838. An assignment of errors must be filed or there may be an affirm

ance, without a consideration of the merits of the appeal. Lloyd v. Chapman, C. C. A., 93 Fed. 599; Re Dunning, C. C. A., 94 Fed. 709. See Gardner v. Gleason, C. C. A., 259 Fed. 755; infra, § 701. An appeal will ordinarily be dismissed when the record does not show that the questions of law presented by the assignments of error were not presented to and ruled upon by the court below, Fidelity Tr. Co. v. Robinson, C. C. A., 192 Fed. 562; and, if not dismissed, such questions will not usually be considered by the appellate court. Arctic Ice Mach. Co. v. Armstrong County Tr. Co., C. C. A., 192 Fed. 114, Re Charles Knosher & Co., C. C. A., 197 Fed. 136; Shaffer v. Koblegard Co., C. C. A., 183 Fed. 71; § 711, infra. Re Boston Dry Goods Co., C. C. A., 125 Fed. 226; Re Shoe & Leather Reporter, C. C. A., 129 Fed. 588; Re O'Connell, C. C. A., 137 Fed. 838; Carey v. Donohue, C. C. A., 209 Fed. 328; Re Brantman, C. C. A., 244 Fed. 101; Moody-Hormann-Boelhauwe Cloth Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 653; Household Supply Co. v. Whiteaker, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 730. See Osborne v. Perkins, C. C. A., 112 Fed. 127; Re Koenig, 127 Fed. 891; Buckingham v. Estes, C. C. A., 128 Fed. 584; infra, § 711. Even jurisdictional questions that might be waived will not, in such a case, be considered. Boonville Nat. Bank v. Blakey, C. C. A., 107 Fed. 891. But see Re Gottlieb & Co., 245 Fed. 139. Jurisdictional questions which cannot be waived will be considered, even if they were not raised below, C. C. Taft Co. v. Century Sav. Bank, C. C. A., 141 Fed. 369; Re

V. Clinton Wire