CLEVENGER, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, v. CHANEY; SAME v. LYLE; SAME v. NICHOLS

CLEVENGER, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, v. CHANEY. SAME v. LYLE. SAME v. NICHOLS. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AND APPLICATIONS POR WRITS OP CERTIORARI. Nos. 221, 222, 223. Motions to dismiss or affirm and applications for certiorari submitted December 7, 1908. Decided December 14, 1908. Appeals from the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming orders and decrees of the bankruptcy court dismissed for want of jurisdiction without opinion on authority of Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89. Mr. E. E. Clevenger and Mr. Cook Danford, for appellants. Mr. A. H. Mitchell for appellees. [ The headnote in Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89, is as follows; “Clause 3 of general order in bankruptcy XXXVI applies to-appeal-able cases and must be complied with. . “This appeal cannot be maintained because it does not com*within either paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of § 25b oí the bankruptcy act. “Where the decision below proceeds on principles of general law broad enough to sustain it without reference to provisions of the bankruptcy act, the question involved is not one which would justify a writ of error from the highest court of a State to this court.”] [MAJORITY — Per Curiam:] Per Curiam: Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Applications for certiorari denied. Chapman, Trustee, &c., v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89.