¶1R-Bankruptcy — -Supervisory Jurisdiction oe Circuit Court — Circuit Courts oe Appeal. 7". . '
¶2•• Tlie general supervisory jurisdiction' conferred by Rev. St § 4986, upon the circuit courts over canses and questions arising in the distilct-.courts bankruptcy cases,was not transferred to,the circuit epurts of appeal by the judiciary act of March 3Í 1891, but-Still remains With the circuit courts.. _ ' •
¶3& 'SÍmE-^Coíifosition — Delay oe 'Creditor.
¶4Whore a creditor of a bankrupt does not present his proof of debt to the committee, or demand composition notes, until after final distribution among tbe creditors’who complied with ■the.tGi''ms 'of the composition, and the delay is not caused by mere oversight or neglect, but by the “be-ajBd-projnise” that., the, .,elajm' should be paid in full, he is not entitled any peliefi' , r,,r
¶5*143In Bankruptcy. Sur petition of the executors of Isaac S. Waterman, deceased, for review of the decree of the district court made in this matter May 5, 1891.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7H. A. Drake, for petitioners.
¶8A. U. Eickey, for respondents.
¶10In form and substance this is a petition for review under section 4986, Key. St. TJ. S. which confers on the circuit court general supervisory jurisdiction over cases and questions arising in the district court in bankruptcy. This jurisdiction is different from the appellate jurisdiction given by section 4980. Coit v. Robinson, 19 Wall. 274. This appellate jurisdiction under section 4980 was transferred to the circuit court of appeals by the act of March 3, 1891, establishing those courts. This •was recently decided by the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit. Duff v. Carrier, 55 Fed. Rep. 433. But, in my opinion, the, general supervisory jurisdiction in bankruptcy under section 4986 was not so transferred, but remains in the circuit court. This case, therefore, is properly here, and is to be decided on its merits.
¶11A very careful examination of the record has brought me to the conclusion that the petitioners have no just cause of complaint against the committee of creditors under the composition. If the petitioners did not receive their pro rata share of the fund, they have only themselves to blame. They did not present their proof of debt to the committee, or demand composition notes, until late in the fall of 1883, after the final distribution had been made among the creditors who had complied with the terms of the composition. Sor was this failure to act the result of oversight or simple neglect. Mr. Barr, the general manager for the executors of Waterman, distinctly testifies that the reason for the delay in presenting the claim was “the belief and promise [made by Starr, Jr.] that it should be paid in full.” The peliHonors then delayed necessary action in the expectation that they would fare better at the hands of the bankrupts than the creditors who came In under the composition. The account made out by Mr. Weckerly, the representative of the committee, and verified by his oath on February 12, 1884, and which the district court, after investigation, approved, has not been successfully impeached. i\'or am I able to discover any error in the decree of the district court here complained of. Therefore, now, this 3d day of June, 1893, the decree of the district court in this matter, made on May 5, 1891, is affirmed.