US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Where plaintiff in error seasonably sets up and claims that, because the bankruptcy court adjudicated his debt to be not provable, the proceedings in bankruptcy and defendant's discharge are not a bar, a federal issue is raised, and as, in this case, that question is not frivolous, this Court has jurisdiction under § 237, Judicial Code.

A disallowed debt and a nonprovable debt are not identical, and a claim that has been presented and disallowed as not having foundation is not a nonprovable debt, and the discharge is a bar.

In this case, held that the contract on which the claim sued for was based was either terminated by defendant's bankruptcy or noncompliance therewith constituted a breach, and, in either case, defendant was released by his discharge.

As plaintiff, suing on a claim disallowed in the bankruptcy proceeding, made no effort to review the action of the bankruptcy court in the chanrobles.com-red

Page 236 U. S. 71

direct way prescribed by the Bankruptcy Act, the result in this case cannot be obtained indirectly by suit in the state court based on the contention that the debt was nonprovable.

8 Ga.App. 605 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court under § 237, Judicial Code, and the effect of a discharge in bankruptcy, are stated in the opinion.