16 FEDERAL REPORTER. �can "we carry out the object which the banlcrupt law îiad îu view. Now, take this district. The court, by statute, only sits twicG a year, once in May and once in November, and it cer- tainly could not have been the intention of congress in such a case that there should be an interval of six months, or more, as there might be before the entry of an appeal should be made in the circuit court, and therefore the supreme court, in considering the statute, required that the appeal should ba entered in the circuit court within ten days after the order made by the district court. �If it is to be entered at the succeeding term, and if the "words "next after the expiration" from the time of claiming the same mean the succeeding term, then, of course, there is no significance to be given to the word "first." Perhaps, on that account, it was omitted in the Eevision. �The statute has been construed in other cases — in Wood y. Bailey, 21 Wall. 640; In the Matter of Coleman, 7 Blatchf. 192 — in which the court held that after the claim of a creditor of a bankrupt's estate was rejeeted by the district court, and an appeal taken from the decision of the district court, he must enter his appeal within ten days in the circuit court, and comply with order No. 26, and that he must also set forth a statement in writing, etc. This has been the law ever sinco the statute was enacted, and section 4984 of the Kevised Statutes requires that, upon entering his appeal in the circuit court, the appellant shall file with the clerk a state- ment of his case and the amount claimed in his declaration. In the case in 7 Blatchford the appeal was dismissed be- cause the entry wa& not made accordingly. And the point is decided in the same way in In re Place v. Sparkman, 4 B. E, 541. And unless the omission of the word "firàt" in the Eevision changes the meaning of the law as it was originallj enacted, then these decisions are in point. And althoagh the last are not absolutely controlling in this court, still I think it must be considered the tnie construction of the act. It is especially the construction which the supreme court has placed upon the original bankrupt law, and I do not think the omission of the word "first" changes that construction. �So the appealg wiU be dismissed in both cases. ����
