MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Walker Grain Company, on July 27, 1918, borrowed from the American National Bank of Fort Worth, Texas, $10,000, for which it executed its demand note
Upon the appeal here appellant seeks a review of the order adjudging appellant in contempt and also of the jurisdictional issues disposed of by the original decree approving the action of the referee which the circuit court of appeals refused to disturb. All questions concerning the validity and merits of that decree were finally disposed of by the decree of the circuit court of appeals and the denial of the application for a certiorari by this court. The district court was bound to give effect to the decision of the circuit court of appeals; so that what, in effect, we are asked to do is to review and reverse the decree of the latter. The power here to review that decree has been exhausted; but, in any event, it could not be exercised upon direct appeal or error. Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U.S. 325, 331-334; Carter v. Roberts, 177 U.S. 496, 500; Union Trust Co. v. Westhus, 228 U.S. 519, 522-524; Metropolitan Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 223 U.S. 519, 522-524; Shapiro v. United States, 235 U.S. 412, 415-417.
It follows that the only questions open for consideration are those arising from the contempt order. But that order, being in part punitive, takes character from its criminal feature and, ordinarily, such an order is not open to review by this court upon direct appeal or error. O'Neal v. United States, 190 U.S. 36, 38; Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U.S. 121, 122; In re Chetwood, 165 U.S. 443, 462. And see Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 110-111; Bessette v. W.B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 336-338; Matter of Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U.S. 458, 461; In re Merchants' Stock Co., 223 U.S. 639,
Appellant insists, however, that the jurisdiction of this court attaches upon the grounds that the district court was without jurisdiction to make the order and that there was a denial of constitutional rights. See Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74, 78-79. Jurisdiction of the district court here over the person and over the subject-matter of contempts is beyond question; and the challenge to the jurisdiction, as well as the assumed denial of constitutional rights, apparently, are made to rest only upon the assertion that it was not within the power of the referee or the district court, as a court of bankruptcy, to require the bank, by a summary order, to restore to the trustee the amount of the payment in question; the contention being that the only remedy was by plenary action with the right of trial by jury. But, since the decision of the circuit court of appeals, as already stated, is conclusively against appellant upon that issue, and prevented any further consideration of it by the district court, the asserted basis for a direct resort to this court is without any substance.