The first question is, whether the decree dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction was rightly made, and this is to be solved by reference to the second section of the Bankrupt Act. By this section it is declared that the Circuit Courts 'shall have a general superintendence and jurisdiction of all cases and questions arising under this act; and, except when special provision is otherwise made, may, upon bill, petition, or other proper process, of any party aggrieved, hear and determine the case as in a court of equity.' By a subsequent clause of the same section it is declared that said courts 'shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts . . . of all suits at law or in equity . . . by the assignee against any person claiming an adverse interest, or by such person against such assignee, touching any property, or rights of property, of said bankrupt, transferable to or vested in such assignee.'
The first clause confers upon the Circuit Courts that supervisory jurisdiction which may be exercised in a summary manner, in term or vacation, in court or at chambers, and upon the exercise of which this court has decided that it has no appellate jurisdiction.
The second clause confers jurisdiction by regular suit, either at law or in equity, in the cases specified; that is, in controversies between the assignee and persons claiming an adverse interest, touching any property of the bankrupt.
The present case is in form a regular bill in equity; but it also asks a revision of the action of the District Court in the premises. As an original bill in equity it cannot stand, if the District Court had jurisdiction to proceed as it did; for the matter was already decided in that court. As a bill to review the proceedings and decision of the District Court, it was a very proper proceeding, and ought to have been entertained by the Circuit Court. The revisory jurisdiction of the Circuit Court may be exercised by bill as well as by petition; and as this bill complains of the action of the District Court, and asks for a review and reversal thereof, the Circuit Court erred in dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. But regarded as a bill of review, we could not, according to our decision in Morgan v. Thornhill, entertain an appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court in the case.
The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed, unless it can be shown that the District Court proceeded without jurisdiction. If this were the case, then the bill may be regarded as an original bill, of which the Circuit Court clearly had jurisdiction, and the appeal to this court was properly taken.
The case here, then, depends on the question whether the District Court had jurisdiction to proceed by rule as it did. The goods, it has been seen, were in the custody of the sheriff, under a writ of provisional seizure, and held as a pledge for the rent of the lessor. The seizure had been made before the bankruptcy. The landlord claimed the right thus to hold possession of them until his claim for rent was satisfied. This claim was adverse to that of the assignee. The case presented was one of conflicting claims to the possession of goods, and the sheriff had present possession for the benefit of the lessor. Neither the sheriff nor the lessor was a party to the proceedings in bankruptcy. No process had been served upon them to make them such. They were not before the court; and the court had no control or jurisdiction over them.
Under these circumstances the assignees applied for and obtained from the District Court, a rule on the lessor and sheriff to deliver the goods to them. Had the court authority to make such a rule? Could such a rule be characterized as due process of law?