to the Honorable Edward T. Bartlett, a judge of the Court of Appeals of said State and moved before him for the allowance of an appeal to the said Court of Appeals from said judgment; but on December 7, 1905, the said Judge Bartlett denied said motion. VI. Upon said trial and upon said appeal and upon said subsequent motions, which were made in said Appellate Division and before said judge of the Court of Appeals, your petitioners duly argued and insisted and asked that said complaint should be dismissed upon the further ground that a trustee in bankruptcy could not maintain an action to set aside a chattel mortgage for fraud upon creditors in this case; in which there was no evidence that there were judgment creditors of said bankrupt represented by said trustee. Said objection made by your petitioners was overruled in all said courts. Your petitioners duly excepted to said ruling in the trial court. Your petitioners argued in said Appellate Division and before said judge of said Court of Appeals, the question of the juris diction of said court and of the said contractual right of your petitioners to have the questions decided by said District Court of the United States, which are hereinbefore set forth. Said decisions of said courts and judges, and of each of them, denied to your petitioners, a title, right, privilege and immunity held by your petitioners under the constitution and statutes of the United States. Wherefore your petitioners pray that a writ of error may issue and that they may be allowed to bring up for review before the Supreme Court of the United States, the said order and judgment of said Appellate Division of said Supreme Court of the State of New York; and that your petitioners may have such other and further relief in the premises as may be just; and your petitioners will ever pray, etc. ROGER FOSTER, Petitioners' Attorney, 35 Wall Street, New York. SOLON L. FRANK. SAMUEL FRANK. Solon L. Frank, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am one of the foregoing petitioners. The foregoing petition is true to my own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon informa tion and belief; and as to those matters I believe the same to be true. Sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 1905. (Seal of Isidor Mehrbach, Notary Public. New York County.) ISIDOR MEHRBACH, Notary Public, N. Y. Co. Read on application for writ of error, Dec. 19, 1905. R. W. PECKHAM, Asso. Jus. Sup. Ct., U. S. APPELLATE FORM IX.-PRAYER FOR REVERSAL. [Frank v. Vollkommer, 205 U. S. 521.] To the Honorable the Supreme Court of the United States: SOLON L. FRANK and SAMUEL FRANK, Doing Business as S. L. & S. FRANK, Plaintiffs in Error, against JOSEPH VOLLKOMMER, JR., as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of JACOB VOGT, a Bankrupt, and JACOB VOGT, Defendants in Error. And now come Solon L. Frank and Samuel Frank, the plaintiffs in error, and pray for a reversal of the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the Second Department in the action brought by Joseph Vollkommer, Jr., as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Jacob Vogt, a bankrupt, plaintiff and respondent, against Solon L. Frank and Samuel Frank, doing business under the name of S. L. & S. Frank, defendants, appellants, who were impleaded with Jacob Vogt, who made default, which judgment was entered in the office of the clerk of the County of Kings on or about the 23rd day of October, 1905: and they also pray for a reversal of the order of affirmance in said action by said Appellate Division, in the office of the clerk of said Appellate Division on or about October 11, 1905; and they also pray for a reversal of the judgment in said action, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for the County of Kings, entered in the office of the clerk of the County of Kings on or about July 21, 1903. ROGER FOSTER, Attorney for Solon L. Frank and Samuel Frank, 35 Wall Street, New York. APPELLATE FORM X.-NOTICE TO JOIN IN WRIT OF ERROR. [From record in Frank v. Vollkommer, 205 U. S. 521.] Supreme Court, County of New York. JOSEPH VOLLKOMMER, JR., as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Jacob Vogt, a Bankrupt, against SOLON L. FRANK and SAMUEL FRANK, doing business under the name of S. L. & S. Frank, and JACOB VOGT. Dear Sir: Please take notice that Messrs. Solon L. Frank and Samuel Frank are about to apply to a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of error to review the order and judgment of the Appellate Division, which affirmed the judgment of the Special Term herein; and that they hereby demand and request and notify you to join in the application for such writ of error. Dated New York, December 12th, 1905. Yours, etc., To JACOB VOGT. SOLON L. and SAMUEL FRANK. By ROGER FOSTER, Their Attorney. APPELLATE FORM XI.-CERTIFICATE OF QUESTION OF [Bigby v. U. S., 188 U. S. 400, in which the author was counsel.] The [District] Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. The [District] Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York hereby certifies to the Supreme Court of the United States that on the thirtieth day of January, 1901, a judgment was entered in the above-entitled action, pursuant to the decision of said court sustaining a demurrer filed by the defendant. The United States of America, to the petition of the petitioner, William Samuel Bigby, on all the grounds specified in said demurrer, namely: (1) That it appears upon the face of the petition that the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. (2) That it appears upon the face of the petition that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. (3) That it appears upon the face of the petition that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant. A copy of such petition and demurrer is contained in the judgment roll filed herein, to which reference is had for a more particular description thereof. And this court further certifies that in said cause the jurisdiction of this court is in issue, and further certifies to the Supreme Court of the United States said question of jurisdiction raised by said demurrer to the petition on the grounds aforesaid, namely: The question whether a person who is not, and has not been, an employee of the United States, can sue the United States, in the [District] Court of the United States, in the district where he resides, to recover damages to the amount of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars, which damages were caused by personal injury received by said person through the negligence of an employee of the United States, while said person injured as aforesaid, was being carried on an elevator in a public building, owned and used by the United States as a postoffice and for other governmental uses and purposes, when said person entered said elevator for the purpose of visiting the office of the United States marshal of such district on official business. Dated Brooklyn, Jan. 31, 1901. (The Seal of the [District] Court, Eastern District of New York.) EDWARD B. THOMAS, United States Judge. APPELLATE FORM XII. SUPERSEDEAS BOND. [District] Court of the United States of America for the Southern District of New York, in the Second Circuit. JOHN DOE, Aрpellant, against RICHARD ROE, Respondent. Know all men by these presents, that we, John Doe and George Palliser, both of the city, county and State of New York, are held and firmly bound unto the above-named Richard Roe in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid to the said Richard Roe, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, and each of us, our and each of our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, and dated the 18th day of De cember, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty kine. Whereas, the above-named John Doe has prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, to reverse the decree rendered in the above-entitled suit, by the Judge of the [District] Court of the United States, for the Southern District of New York: Now, therefore, the condition of this obligation is such, that if the above named John Doe shall prosecute said appeal to effect and answer all damages and costs, if he fail to make said appeal good, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise the same shall be and remain in full force and virtue. JOHN DOE, Sealed and delivered, and taken and acknowledged, this 18th day of December, 1889, before me. Approved by JOHN A. SHIELDS, U. S. Commissioner. E. HENRY LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. APPELLATE FORM XIII.—ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. [From record in Frank v. Vollkommer, 205 U. S. 521.] Supreme Court of the United States. SOLON L. FRANK and SAMUEL FRANK, Doing Business against JOSEPH VOLLKOMMER, JR., as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of JACOB VOGT, a Bankrupt, Defendant in Error. And now come Solon L. Frank and Samuel Frank, plaintiffs in error, and make and file this their assignment of error. I. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the Second Department erred in refusing to direct a dismissal of the complaint in the action below for the reason that the Supreme Court of the State of New York had no jurisdiction of said case. II. The Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Kings erred in refusing to dismiss said complaint for the same reason. III. The said Appellate Division erred in refusing to direct the dismissal of said complaint for the reason that the plaintiff below had no right to sue to set aside a chattel mortgage in a case where he did not represent a judgment creditor of the mortgagor. IV. The Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Kings erred in refusing to dismiss said complaint for the same reason. V. The said Appellate Division for the Supreme Court of the State of New York erred in refusing to set aside so much of the judgment of said Supreme Court in the County of Kings as adjudicated concerning the title to a fund, which had been deposited under an order of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. VI. The Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Kings erred in making such an adjudication. VII. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the Second Department erred in affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Kings hereinbefore referred to. ROGER FOSTER, Attorney for Plaintiffs in Error, 35 Wall Street, New York. Read on application for writ of error, Dec. 19, 1905. R. W. PECKHAM, Asso. Jus. Sup. Ct. U. S. |