an unrecorded chattel mortgage must be determined by the re-
cording law of the State. Holt v. Crucible Steel Co., 262.

6. Trustee; right of holder of unrecorded mortgage, under Kentucky statute,
as against creditors represented by.

The Circuit Court of Appeals having held that under the decisions of
the highest court of the State bearing on the question, the term
"creditors" as used in § 496, Kentucky Statutes, 1903, does not
include subsequent creditors without notice who have not se-
cu a lien on the property prior to the recording thereof, and
thcourt not being able to say that such construction is wrong,
held that the title of the holder of an unrecorded chattel mortgage
on property in Kentucky is valid and effective as against the trus-
tee in bankruptcy as to the creditors who became such after the
mortgage was given and who had not fastened any lien on the
property prior to the proceeding in bankruptcy. Ib.

7. Appeals; rulings of Circuit Court of Appeals reviewable here.
A ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the petitioning creditors
held provable claims is not a judgment allowing or rejecting a
claim within the meaning of § 25b of the Bankruptcy Act of
1898, and cannot under § 25a and subparagraph 1 be reviewed
by this court. Calnan Co. v. Doherty, 145.

8. Appeals; when appeal from Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed.
Where the prerequisites for an appeal to this court specified in subpar-
agraph 1 of § 25b of the Bankruptcy Act do not exist, and the
Circuit Court of Appeals does not make the findings of fact and
conclusions of law required by clause 3 of General Order 36, the
appeal must be dismissed. (Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89.) Ib.

9. Appeals from Circuit Court of Appeals; application of § 6 of Judiciary
Act of 1891.

Appellate jurisdiction over a ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals
in a bankruptcy matter may not be exercised by this court by
virtue of § 6 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517. (Tefft
v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114.) Ib.

10. Appeals to Circuit Court of Appeals; controversies appealable.
Controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings, as distinguished from
bankruptcy proceedings, are appealable to the Circuit Court of
Appeals under the Court of Appeals Act of March 3, 1891. Mat-
ter of Loving, 183.

11. Appeals to Circuit Court of Appeals; law governing.

A claim asserted against a bankrupt's estate not only for the amount
thereof but for a lien therefor on the assets of the estate is a bank-
ruptcy proceeding, and not a controversy arising from the bank-
ruptcy proceeding, and an appeal by the trustee from the order
allowing the claim and lien is under § 25a to the Circuit Court of
Appeals. Ib.

12. Appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals under § 25a; effect on right of
petition under § 246.

One who is entitled under § 25a to an appeal to the Circuit Court of
Appeals, is not also entitled to a review in the Circuit Court of
Appeals by petition under § 24b. Ib.

13. Review under § 24b and § 25; scope of.
Under § 24b, questions of law only are taken to the Circuit Court of
Appeals, while under § 25 controversies of fact as well as of law
are taken to that court, with findings of fact to be made therein
if the case is to be taken to this court. In re Mueller, 135 Fed.
Rep. 711, approved. Ib.

BANKS.

See NATIONAL Banks.

BONDS.

1. Surety; conditions; breach; pleading in action on.

While liability under a surety bond for honesty of an employé would
be defeated if the loss was due to neglect of the employer to take
the precautions required by the bond, the condition is subsequent
and not precedent, and there is no occasion for an averment in
respect thereto; it is a matter of defense that must come from the
other side, upon whom the onus rests. Title Guaranty Co. v.
Nichols, 346.

2. Surety; conditions; breach; question for jury.

Where the evidence, as in this case, shows that examinations were
made, it is for the jury to determine whether reasonable diligence
had been used in making them. Ib.

3. Surety; conditions; effect of compliance as warranty.

The certificate of correctness of employé's accounts on obtaining re-
newals of surety bond for his honesty held in this case not to be a
warranty but a certificate that his books had been examined and
found correct.

Ib.

4. Surety; conditions; sufficiency of compliance.

The mere fact that the examination, if made by a reasonably com-
petent person, failed to discover discrepancies covered by false
entries and bookkeeping devices would not defeat renewals of the
policy. Ib.

In re Mueller, 135 Fed. Rep. 711, approved in Matter of Loving, 183.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Ceballos & Co. v. United States, 214 U. S. 47, distinguished in United
States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.

Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, distinguished in Choate
v. Trapp, 665.

United States v. Tyler, 105 U. S. 44, distinguished in Plummer v.
United States, 137.

CASES EXPLAINED.

West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229, explained in Haskell v.
Kansas Natural Gas Co., 217.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Apache County v. Barth, 177 U. S. 538, followed in Gonzales v. Buist,
126.

Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, followed in Henry v.
A. B. Dick Co., 1.

Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486, followed in Interstate Com.
Comm. v. Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89, followed in J. W. Calnan Co. v.
Doherty, 145.

Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, followed in Gleason v. Wood, 679;

English v. Richardson, 680.

Excelsior Water Power Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, fol-
lowed in Herndon-Carter Co. v. Norris & Co., 496.

Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 363, followed in Interstate Com. Comm. v.
Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Glenn v.

Fant, 134 U. S. 398, followed in Gonzales v. Buist, 126.
Goat v. United States, 224 U. S. 458, followed in Deming Investment
Co. v. United States, 471.

Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413, followed in Goat v. United

States, 458.

Helm v. Zarecor, 222 U. S. 32, followed in Sharpe v. Bonham, 241.
Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 437, followed in
American Security & Trust Co. v. District of Columbia, 491.
Lewis v. United States, 92 U. S. 618, followed in Guarantee Co. v. Title
Guaranty Co., 152.

Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, followed in
Philadelphia, Balto. & Wash. R. R. Co. v. Schubert, 603.

Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, followed in Heckman v. United
States, 413.

Paper Bag Patent Case, 210 U. S. 405, followed in Henry v. A. B. Dick
Co., 1.

Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516, followed in Interstate Com.
Comm. v. Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, followed in Philadelphia,
Balto. & Wash. R. R. Co. v. Schubert, 603.

Southern Railway Co. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 326, followed in Missouri
Pacific Ry. Co. v. Castle, 541.

Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U. S. 420, followed in Standard Oil
Co. v. Missouri, 270; Graham v. West Virginia, 616.

Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, followed in United States
v. St. Louis Terminal, 383.

Steamer Coquitlam, 163 U. S. 346, followed in Interstate Com. Comm.
v. Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114, followed in J. W. Calnan Co. v.
Doherty, 145.

Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, 221 U. S. 408, followed in
Brinkmeier v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 268.

Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, followed in Heckman
v. United States, 413.

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 111, followed in Standard Oil Co. v.
Missouri, 270.

United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315, followed

in Heckman v. United States, 413.

United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, followed in
United States v. St. Louis Terminal, 383.

United States v. Ames, 99 U. S. 35, followed in Interstate Com. Comm.
v. Goodrich Transit Co., 194.

United States v. Berdan Fire Arms Co., 156 U. S. 552, followed in
United States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.

United States v. New York Indians, 173 U. S. 464, followed in United

States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, followed in
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Richmond, 160.

Wheeler v. Nesbit, 24 How. 544, followed in Brown v. Selfridge, 189.
Wisconsin &c. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, followed in Oregon
R. R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 510.

Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 U. S. 158, followed in Thomas v.

Taylor, 73.

Young v. Amy. 171 U. S. 179, followed in Gonzales v.

CERTIFICATE.

See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.
See BANKRUPTCY, 5, 6.

CHEROKEE INDIANS.

See INDIANS, 3, 4, 15, 26, 27, 28.

CHICKASAW INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 5.

CHOCTAW INDIANS.

See INDIANS, 5, 20.

CITIZENSHIP.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8;

CORPORATIONS, 1;

INDIANS, 2.

Buist, 126.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
See PATENTS, 3, 12.

COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
See RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

COMMERCE.

See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24; RESTRAINT OF TRADE;

SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.