Waddell v. Arnett

Boat), C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this ease will be dismissed because there was no final judgment entered in the court below. The case ■comes up on an intervention by trustees in bankruptcy, as claimants in .an attachment by Waddell of a crop of wheat of the bankrupt. The attachment was sued out within four months prior to the bankruptcy proceeding, and was therefore nullified under section 67f of the National Bankruptcy Act.

Crook Horner Co. v. Gilpin, 112 Md. 1 . The sheriff liad sold the wheat and passed the proceeds, over to the attaching creditor, and the trustees in bankruptcy filed a petition in the case in the State court for an order directing the ■creditor, Waddell, to pay over to the trustees, all sums of money thus obtained by him. On this petition the court passed an order directing Waddell to pay over the money as prayed, unless he should show cause to the contrary before a day specified. And within the time limited Waddell filed an answer raising a. single question of jurisdiction: whether the court had not been deprived by the bankruptcy of juris■diction over 'the whole subject matter of the attachment proceeding, and the jurisdiction of the United States, court made exclusive.

This answer was demurred to by the trustees, and the demurrer was sustained. The only record of this action of the court on the demurrer is in the clerk’s entry that, “afterwards, to wit: on the 1st day of March, demurrer was sustained by the Court”; and the appellant noted his appeal “from the judgment of the court on demurrer in this •ease, which judgment sustaining demurrer was. filed or noted by the court on the record on the 1st day of March, 1924.” No appeal will lie from a mere