opinion delivered in Forsythe v. Vehmeyer, supra, it was held, reviewing the former cases in this court, that, under the act of 1867, the fraud referred to meant positive fraud, or fraud in fact involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong, and not implied fraud, which may exist without an imputation of bad faith. "Such a construction of the statute," it was said in Neal v. Clark, 95 U. S. 704, 709, "is consonant with equity, and consistent with the object and intention of Congress in enacting a general law by which the honest citizen may be relieved from the burden of hopeless insolvency. A different construction would be inconsistent with the liberal spirit which pervades the entire bankrupt system." This language, we think, equally applies to the present case. The difference is that under the act of 1898 claims for fraud prosecuted to judgment will not be discharged. The reason for this change, as suggested by Mr. Justice Brown, in delivering the opinion in Crawford v. Burke, may be that Congress did not intend to offer any inducement to change unliquidated claims into actions for fraud, and therefore limited the exception from the operation of the discharge to such cases only as had been litigated and reduced to actual judgment. When such is the case we think a correct interpretation of the law does not require a close examination into the form of the action to determine whether technically it is one ex delicto or otherwise, but the real question is, was the relief granted in the judgment, based upon actual as distinguished from constructive fraud of the bankrupt. If the judgment is thus founded, whatever the form of the action, it is the intent and purpose of the law that the bankrupt shall not be discharged from it, but shall still rest under its obligation, so far as the bankrupt law is concerned.

As thus interpreted, we think there can be no question that the judgment rendered in this case was based upon the fraud of Bullis and Barse. The facts charged and found showed false and fraudulent representations as to the character of the property which was to be the security of those who should

purchase the bonds and resulted in depriving them wrongfully of valuable rights. These findings were held sufficient in the state tribunals to warrant relief on the ground of fraud, and the judgment in this case is, in our opinion, in an action for fraud within the meaning of the bankrupt law.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of New York is, therefore,

Affirmed.

195 U. S.

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM OCTOBER 10, TO DECEMBER 12, 1904.

No. 176. RUFUS BINYON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE UNITED STATES. In error to the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory. Argued October 14, 1904. Decided October 17, 1904. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Brown v. United States, 171 U. S. 631; Cross v. United States, 145 U. S. 571. Mr. W. H. Green for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Purdy for defendant in

error.

No. 333. LEE LOCK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 11, 1904. Decided October 17, 1904. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, but without costs. Mr. Henry C. McPike and Mr. A. H. Jarman for plaintiff in error. Mr. U. S. Webb and Mr. James H. Campbell for defendants in error.

No. 45. PEDRO PEREA ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS, ETC., APPELLANTS, v. GUADALUPE PEREA de HARRISON ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. Motion to dismiss submitted October 17, 1904. Decided October 24, 1904. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; Meagher v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Company, 145 U. S. 608; Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354; Haseltine v. Bank, 183 U. S. 130. Mr. T. B. Catron for appellants. Mr. W. B. Childers for appellees.

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

195 U. S.

No. 25. NATHAN C. JESSUP, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE FREEHOLDERS AND COMMONALTY OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Argued October 27, 1904. Decided October 31, 1904. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410; Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. S. 89. See Trustees v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122; Trustees v. Jessup, 173 N. Y. 84; People v. Jessup, 160 N. Y. 249. Mr. Charles M. Stafford for plaintiff in error. Mr. Thomas Young for defendants in error.

No. 30. MINNIE KILPATRICK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA AND GULF RAILROAD COMPANY. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Submitted October 28, 1904. Decided October 31, 1904. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs, on the authority of Southern Pacific Company v. Seley, 152 U. S. 145, and case remanded to the United States court for the Central District of the Indian Territory. Mr. W. O. Davis for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. W. McLoud for defendant in error.

No. 390. SEATTLE DOCK COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN Error, v. SEATTLE AND LAKE WASHINGTON WATERWAY COMPANY ET AL.; and No. 391. CANNEL COAL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. SEATTLE AND LAKE WASHINGTON WATERWAY COMPANY ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 24, 1904. Decided October 31, 1904. Per Curiam. Judgments affirmed with costs. New Orleans v. New Orleans Waterworks Company, 142 U. S. 79; Yesler v. Commissioners, 146 U. S. 646; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1; Allen v. Forrest, 8 Washington, 700; Mississippi Valley Trust Company v. Hafins, 20 Washington, 272, and these cases, 77 Pac. Rep. 845. Mr. R. A. Ballinger, Mr. M. A. Ballinger, Mr. J. T Ronald and Mr Alfred Battle