Approved in Glenny v. Langdon, 98 U. S. 23, 25 L. Ed. 44, holding jurisdiction did not attach to suit by creditor to set aside fraudulent transfer; Giveen v. Smith, 1 Hask. 364, Fed. Cas. 5467, granting jurisdiction in action by assignee to set aside fraudulent mortgage; Bachman v. Packard, 2 Sawy. 268, Fed. Cas. 709, holding Circuit Court had not jurisdiction of simple action by assignee to collect a debt; Johnson v. Price, 13 Fed. Cas. 793, dismissing bill filed by creditors before appointment of assignee to restrain disposal of estate; Sutherland V. Lake Superior Ship Canal etc. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 464, entertaining bill by assignee to ascertain extent of liens; Smith v. Mason, 14 Wall. 431, 20 L. Ed. 752, holding that stranger to proceedings in bankruptcy cannot be compelled to come into court under order to show cause; Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. 104, allowing action brought by adverse claimant to set aside fraudulent assignment; Goodall v. Tuttle, 3 Biss. 238, Fed. Cas. 5533, holding assignee may sue in any District Court to collect assets. Distinguished in Mitchell v. McClure, 91 Fed. 621, holding District Court had not jurisdiction of plenary action of replevin brought by bankrupt's trustee against adverse claimant. When bankruptcy case has proceeded to final judgment or decree in District Court, it may be removed into Circuit Court for re-examination by writ of error, if an action at law, or by appeal, if a suit in equity, provided amount claimed exceeds five hundred dollars, and the proper notices are given. Approved in Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 267, 21 L. Ed. 497, and In re Oregon Bulletin Printing etc. Co., 3 Sawy. 532, Fed. Cas. 10,560, both holding proceedings reviewable upon writ of error where exceptions were duly taken in jury trial; Lehman v. Strassberger, 2 Woods, 557, Fed. Cas. 8216, holding, where question of bankruptcy vel non was tried by jury, remedy of plaintiff in error was by writ of error; In re Briggs, 61 Fed. 499, 9 C. C. A. 585, discussing effect of act of 1891 on bankruptcy jurisdiction. Suit by or against an assignee in bankruptcy cannot be maintained in any court unless brought within two years from time cause of action accrued. Distinguished in Minot v. Tappan, 127 Mass. 339, holding statute did not apply to suit to obtain instructions of court as to disposal of fund. Where suit by or against an assignee in bankruptcy proceeds in Circuit Court to final judgment or decree, and matter in dispute exceeds sum of two thousand dollars exclusive of costs, it may be removed to Supreme Court by writ of error or by appeal. Approved in Coit v. Robinson, 19 Wall. 282, 22 L. Ed. 153, holding question raised reviewable only in Circuit Court, although involving jurisdictional amount. Assignees or creditors may appeal to Circuit Court on ten days' notice for order allowing or rejecting a proffered claim, but in neither case can appeal be taken to Supreme Court. Questions of fact arising in such issues may be tried by jury. Approved in Wiswall v. Campbell, 93 U. S. 351, 23 L. Ed. 924, following rule. Independent of bankruptcy act, the District Courts possess no equity jurisdiction whatever, and jurisdiction conferred by third clause of second section of that act is of same character as that conferred on Circuit Courts by eleventh section of Judiciary Act. Approved in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U. S. 532, 44 L. Ed. 1180, 20 Sup. Ct. 1003, dismissing suit to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyance by bankrupt and compel accounting; In re Tune, 115 Fed. 914, holding Bankruptcy Court may proceed summarily as to adverse claim made by stranger to bankrupt's property; In re Jacobs, 99 Fed. 541, 39 C. C. A. 647, refusing to review District Court's error in entertaining jurisdiction of bill by trustee against resident to set aside fraudulent conveyance; Jobbins v. Montague, 5 Ben. 427, Fed. Cas. 7329, holding that process of District Court under above section could not be made effective by service outside of district. 11 Wall. 82-88, 20 L. Ed. 47, THE PROTECTOR. Appeal in admiralty prosecuted in name of "Freeborn & Co." should be dismissed for defect of title of parties. Approved in Loveless v. Ransom, 107 Fed. 627, 46 C. C. A. 515, dismissing appeal where judgment joint and all parties not joined; Florida v. Canfield, 40 Fla. 58, 23 South. 598, dismissing writ sued out by John Andrew "et al.," coplaintiff not named; Hampton v. Rouse, 13 Wall. 188, 20 L. Ed. 594, dismissing writ of error on account of omission of parties; The Spark v. Lee Choi Chum, 1 Sawy. 717, Fed. Cas. 13,206, dismissing appeal prosecuted in name of steamer only; In re Woerishoffer, 74 Fed. 916, 21 C. C. A. 175, holding appeal ineffectual as to members of firm whose names were not on bond, etc. Distinguished in Moore v. Simonds, 100 U. S. 146, 25 L. Ed. 591, and Estes v. Trabue, 128 U. S. 229, 32 L. Ed. 438, 9 Sup. Ct. 59, both holding defect amendable under act of June 1, 1872; Miltenberger v. Logansport R. R. Co., 106 U. S. 306, 27 L. Ed. 125, 1 Sup. Ct. 157, where appeals were in open court and decree sufficiently designated the parties; Gumpel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 548, 549, 28 L. Ed. 1129, 1130, 5 Sup. Ct. 617, where parties appeared as partnerships throughout the record; Walton v. Marietta Chair Co., 157 U. S. 346, 39 L. Ed. 727, 15 Sup. Ct. 627, allowing amendment of writ under act of 1872; The Natchez, 27 Fed. 310, holding appeal good irrespective of bond, the party being notified and having appeared. Practice and procedure governing transfer of causes to Federal 11 Wall. 88-95, 20 L. Ed. 153, UNITED STATES v. TYNEN. Where there are two acts on same subject, rule is to give effect to both if possible, but if repugnant in any of their provisions, the latter, without any repealing clause, operates to extent of repugnancy, as repeal of first. Approved in Eastern Extension, Australasia etc. Tel. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 332, 58 L. Ed. 255, 34 Sup. Ct. 57, holding stipulation between United States and telegraph company regarding laying of cable not part of any treaty so as to come within jurisdiction of Court of Claims; Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 105, 46 L. Ed. 1076, 22 Sup. Ct. 780, holding territorial act of 1887 repealed by act of 1890, being repetition with immaterial changes; United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. S. 222, 46 L. Ed. 883, 22 Sup. Ct. 633, construing together act of Congress and subsequent treaty, holding twelfth section of Act 1882 not abrogated by treaty December 8, 1894; United States v. Utah Power etc. Co., 209 Fed. 561, 126 C. C. A. 376, upholding right of Secretary of Interior to grant rights of way over national forests; Hemmer v. United States, 204 Fed. 907, 123 C. C. A. 194, construing act regarding alienation of Indian lands; Stead v. Curtis, 191 Fed. 540, 112 C. C. A. 463, holding under revision of California codes, Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction to set aside probate proceedings; Pel-Ata-Yakot v. United States, 188 Fed. 389, holding jurisdiction to determine heirs of Indian allottees was in Secretary of Interior; Doscher v. United States Pipe Line Co., 185 Fed. 960, holding where State contains two Federal districts, suit must be instituted in district of plaintiff's residence; Bond v. United States, 181 Fed. 616, holding act providing succession of allotment lands referred to those living or dead before passage of act; In re Devlin, 180 Fed. 176, holding new insolvency law did not entitle State of Kansas to priority of payment; Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed. 741, holding repealing act need not specify title of act repealed; United States v. Wood, 168 Fed. 442, holding act prohibiting importation of Chinese and prescribing different punishment repealed former act; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 155 Fed. 953, 84 C. C. A. 93, and United States v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 151 Fed. 89, both refusing to construe act repealing former act prohibiting rebates as condonation of penalties incurred under former act; People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo, 159 Cal. 71, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1148, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 934, 112 Pac. 868, holding repeal of statute pending appeal without stay bond does not affect judgment; Sugar City v. Board of Commissioners, 57 Colo. 444, 140 Pac. 814, holding statute regarding election for removal of county seat repeals former act; Wilson v. People, 36 Colo. 420, 85 Pac. 187, holding prosecution for election fraud cannot be continued after passage of new act; Walsh v. City of Bridgeport, 88 Conn. 534, 535, 91 Atl. 971, holding ordinance prescribing classes of firemen did not repeal act of fire commission regarding salary of firemen while. incapacitated; Washington Home for Incurables v. American Security etc. Co., 38 App. D. C. 432, holding saving clause in act regulating appeals (36 Stats. at Large, 1087, c. 231) referred only to suits carried to judgment; Wirt v. Stubblefield, 17 App. D. C. 290, holding act of Congress of 1899, in reference to notes given for gambling consideration, superseded British statute previously in force; Callan v. District of Columbia, 16 App. D. C. 277, holding act of Congress regulating hackstands superseded previous legislative enactment of District; Gassenheimer v. District of Columbia, 6 App. D. C. 117, holding violations of act regulating sale of liquor within jurisdiction of police courts; Fulton v. District of Columbia, 2 App. D. C. 438, holding legislation by Congress has repealed acts of commissioners regulating pawnbrokers; Thaw v. Ritchie, 5 Mackey (D. C.), 215, 218, upholding right of orphans' court to decree sale of property by guardian; Jackson v. Davis, 4 Mackey (D. C.), 211, holding surety paying bond given to United States should be subrogated to priority of United States; Renner v. State, 182 Ind. 396, 106 N. E. 704, holding act prescribing penalty for unlicensed sale of liquor not repealed by act not providing penalty for same; Zevely v. Weiner, 5 Ind. Ter. 665, 693, 82 S. W. 947, 957, act of Congress of May 27, 1902, forbidding Secretary of Interior to remove any person from Indian Territory who is in lawful possession of land in any town or city did not take away from Choctaw Nation right to prohibit traders from exposing goods for sale without license, given by treaties of 1855 and 1866; Mayor etc. of Baltimore v. Davis, 120 Md. 405, 87 Atl. 691, holding new act providing salary of police sergeants repealed former act; State v. Gambrill, 115 Md. 512, 81 Atl. 12, holding uniform bills of lading act superseded previous act, as penalties were different; Presson v. Presson, 38 Nev. 208, 147 Pac. 1082, refusing jurisdiction over divorce suit where residence taken up solely for divorce; State v. Anders, 30 N. D. 575, 152 N. W. 802, holding election for relocation of county seat governed by latest act; Sargent County v. Sweetman, 29 N. D. 260, 150 N. W. 877, allowing fee to county judges for services rendered in marriages; United States v. Sena, 12 N. M. 414, 78 Pac. 62, holding appeal filed after passage of repeal VII-14 ing act must be dismissed; State v. Smith, 56 Or. 27, 107 Pac. 982, holding act providing penalty for highway robbery cannot act ex post facto; Labadie v. Smith, 41 Okl. 780, 140 Pac. 430, holding Arkansas statute of descent extended over Indian Territory; Hine v. Gokey, 23 Okl. 873, 102 Pac. 78, holding act regarding construction of bridges embracing all provisions of former act thereby implies a repeal; Fritz v. Brown, 20 Okl. 267, 95 Pac. 439, holding statute of Arkansas requiring affidavit on renewals of chattel mortgages not repealed by act of Congress; Erwin v. State, 116 Tenn. 90, 93 S. W. 78, holding act providing new scheme of government for cities repeals charters of cities; Ex parte Keith, 47 Tex. Cr. 287, 83 S. W. 686, holding general election law did not repeal local option law; State v. Railroad Commission, 52 Wash. 36, 100 Pac. 185, holding rates established by railroad commission repealed rates prescribed by former legislative enactment; Grant v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 66 W. Va. 179, 66 S. E. 711, holding act providing new penalty simply repeals old penalty; dissenting opinion in People v. McNulty, 3 Cal. Unrep. 464, 28 Pac. 824, majority holding law of 1891, amending act regarding death penalty, ex post facto and void as regards prisoners then awaiting execution; dissenting opinion in United States v. Lee, 15 N. M. 399, 110 Pac. 613, majority holding Secretary of Interior has right to grant right of way over natural forests; United States v. Henderson, 11 Wall. 657, 20 L. Ed. 237, holding revenue acts of 1867 and 1868 not inconsistent as to certain authority of collector; State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 431, 21 L. Ed. 654, holding provision in act incorporating bank not repealed by general law as to receivability of bank notes for taxes; Arthur v. Homer, 96 U. S. 140, 24 L. Ed. 812, holding duty on embroidered goods not repealed hy general provision in subsequent act; Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 601, 27 L. Ed. 253, 2 Sup. Ct. 438, holding no repeal was intended of act authorizing issue of bonds by county; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 538, 27 L. Ed. 428, 2 Sup. Ct. 712, holding that amendatory act operated as a repeal as to certain restrictions in railroad donations; United States v. Fisher, 109 U. S. 145, 27 L. Ed. 886, 3 Sup. Ct. 155, holding act appropriating a certain salary repealed by implication; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 570, 27 L. Ed. 1035, 3 Sup. Ct. 405, holding treaty with Indians did not repeal act limiting jurisdiction of courts over crimes committed by Indians; Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U. S. 560, 28 L. Ed. 997, 5 Sup. Ct. 637, holding act of 1804 respecting Virginia military district not repealed by implication by any subsequent acts; Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 58, 39 L. Ed. 619, 15 Sup. Ct. 537, giving effect to two acts relating to pre-emption of Indian lands; Henrietta Min. etc. Co. v. Gardner, 173 U. S. 128, 43 L. Ed. 639, 19 Sup. Ct. 329, holding provision in act relating to attachments repealed on account of repugnancy; United States v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 256, Fed. Cas. 14,527, holding provision of law defining crime of having |