Van Norden v. A. C. Wagy & Co.

(after stating the facts as above). The pendency of the involuntary petition did not deprive the court below of jurisdiction to receive and consider the voluntary petition, and the fact that adjudication was made under the latter did not preclude jurisdiction to protect the creditors under the former. International Silver Co. v. New York Jewelry Co. (C. C. A.) 233 F. 945 . It is held that, unless some question of the preservation of the rights under the earlier involuntary petition arises, there should be an adjudication under the subsequent voluntary petition, In re Lachenmaier (C. C. A.) 203 F. 32 ; In re Anderson Motor Co. (D. C.) 18 F.(2d) 1001 ; and that as a general rule'the adjudication should be made in the voluntary ease “since it is quicker, less expensive, and less likely to lead to delay and unnecessary litigation.” In re New Chattonooga Hardware Co. (D. C.) 190 F. 241 . It results that, if the appellant failed to present to the court below ground for vacating the adjudication in the voluntary proceeding, he was entitled to no relief in that court on either of his petitions.

It remains, therefore, to inquire whether the appellant was erroneously denied the order to…