Chapter 229. To amend the Judicial Code, and to further define the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of appeals and of the Supreme Court, and for other purposes
5,113 words·~23 min read·
/statutes-at-large/vol-43/chapter-229-3928002·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
CHAP. 229.— An Act To amend the Judicial Code, and to further define the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of appeals and of the Supreme Court, and for other purposes. February 13, 1925.[[H. R. 8206](/us/bill/68/hr/8206).][[Public, No. 415](/us/pl/68/415).] *Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, * Judicial Code. That sections 128, 129, 237, 238, 239, and 240 of the Judicial Code as now existing be,Circuit Courts of Appeals.Appeals or writs of error to.Vol. 38, p. 803, amended.In district courts.Exception.*Post*, p. 938. and they are severally, amended and reenacted to read as follows: " Sec. 128.
(a)The circuit courts of appeal shall have appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error final decisions— “First. In the district courts, in all cases save where a direct review of the decision may be had in the Supreme Court under section 238. “Second. Hawaii and Porto Rico district courts. In the United States district courts for Hawaii and for Porto Rico in all cases. “Third. Alaska and Virgin Islands.Cases reviewable. In the district courts for Alaska or any division thereof, and for the Virgin Islands, in all cases, civil and criminal, wherein the Constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States or any authority exercised thereunder is involved; in all other civil cases wherein the value in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $1,000; in all other criminal cases where the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year orCanal Zone. by death, and in all habeas corpus proceedings; and in the district court for the Canal Zone in the cases and mode prescribed in theVol. 42, p. 1006. Act approved September 21, 1922, amending prior laws relating to the Canal Zone. “Fourth. Hawaii and Porto Rico Supreme Courts.Cases reviewable. In the Supreme Courts of the Territory of Hawaii and of Porto Rico, in all civil cases, civil or criminal, wherein the Constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States or any authority exercised thereunder is involved; in all other civil cases wherein the value in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $5,000, and in all habeas corpus proceedings. “Fifth. United States Court for China.Other appellate jurisdiction. In the United States Court for China, in all cases. “(b) The circuit court of appeals shall also have appellate jurisdiction— “First. Specified orders, etc., of district courts.*Pont*, p. 937.Awards of railway employees’ controversies.Vol. 38, p. 107. To review the interlocutory orders or decrees of the district courts which are specified in section 129. “Second. To review decisions of the district courts sustaining or overruling exceptions to awards in arbitrations, as provided in section 8 of an Act entitled ‘An Act providing for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration in controversies between certain employers and their employees,’ approved July 15, 1913. “(c) Bankruptcy cases.Vol. 30, p. 553. The circuit courts of appeal shall also have an appellate and supervisory jurisdiction under sections 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, over all proceedings, controversies, and cases had or brought in the district courts under that Act or any of its amendments, and shall exercise the same in the manner prescribed inIn Alaska and Hawaii. those sections; and the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this regard shall cover the courts of bankruptcyIn Porto Rico. in Alaska and Hawaii, and that of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit shall cover the court of bankruptcy in Porto Rico. “(d) Distribution to circuits. The review under this section shall be in the following circuit courts of appeal: The decisions of a district court of the United States within a State in the circuit court of appeals for the circuit embracing such State: those of the District Court of Alaska or any division thereof, the United States district court, and the Supreme Court of Hawaii, and the United States Court for China, in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; those of the United States district court and the Supreme Court of Porto Rico in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; those of the District937 Court of the Virgin Islands in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and those of the District Court of the Canal Zone in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. “(e) The circuit courts of appeal are further empowered to enforce,Further specified authority.Federal Trade Commission orders.Vol. 38, p. 720. set aside, or modify orders of the Federal Trade Commission, as provided in section 5 of ‘An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,’ approved September 26, 1914; and orders of the Interstate CommerceOrders of Interstate Commerce Commission, etc., under Clayton Act.Vol. 38, p. 735. Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Trade Commission, as provided in section 11 of ‘An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes,’ approved October 15, 1914. “Sec. 129. Where, upon a hearing in a district court, or by aAppeals allowed from injunctions and interlocutory orders of district courts.Cases specified.Vol. 36, p. 1157, amended. judge thereof in vacation, an injunction is granted, continued, modified, refused, or dissolved by an interlocutory order or decree, or an application to dissolve or modify an injunction is refused, or an interlocutory order or decree is made appointing a receiver, or refusing an order to wind up a pending receivership or to take the appropriate steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing a sale or other disposal of property held thereunder, an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree to the circuitAuthority of Supreme Court.*Post*, p. 938.*Provisos*.Precedence given. court of appeals; and sections 239 and 240 shall apply to such cases in the circuit courts of appeals as to other cases therein: *Provided*, That the appeal to the circuit court of appeals must be applied for within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree, and shall take precedence in the appellate court; and the proceedings in other respects in the district court shall not be stayed during the pendency of such appeal unless otherwise ordered by the court, or the appellate court, or a judge thereof: *Provided, however*, That the districtAdditional bond discretionary. court may, in its discretion, require an additional bond as a condition of the appeal.” Sec. 237.
(a)A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highestSupreme Court.Writ of error allowed from decision of State court against validity of treaty or statute of United States.If validity of State statute drawn in question as repugnant to Constitution, etc.Vol. 39, p. 726, amended. court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States, and the decision is against its validity; or where is drawn, in question the validity of a statute of any State, bn the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon a writ of error. The writ shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree had been rendered or passed in a court of the United States. The SupremeAuthority of Supreme Court. Court may reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment or decree of such State court, and may, in its discretion, award execution or remand the cause to the court from which it was removed by the writ. “(b) It shall be competent for the Supreme Court, by certiorari,Certiorari to State court where validity of United States treaty or statute drawn in question. to require that there be certified to it for review and determination, with the same power and authority and with like effect as if brought up by writ of error, any cause wherein a final judgment or decree has been rendered or passed by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States; or where is drawn in questionState law as repugnant to the Constitution, etc. the validity of a statute of any State on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is speciallyTitle, etc., set up under United States authority. set up or claimed by either party under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States; and the power to review under this paragraph may be exercised as well where the Federal claim is sustained as where it is denied. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construedUse of writ of error not hereby limited. to limit or detract from the right to a review on a writ of error in a938case where such a right is conferred by the preceding paragraph; nor shall the fact that a review on a writ of error might be obtained under the preceding paragraph be an obstacle to granting a review on certiorari under this paragraph. “(c) Writ of error not dismissed if certiorari proper mode of review, etc. If a writ of error be improvidently sought and allowed under this section in a case where the proper mode of invoking a review is by a petition for certiorari, this alone shall not be a ground for dismissal; but the papers whereon the writ of error was allowed shall be regarded and acted on as a petition for certiorari and as if duly presented to the Supreme Court at the time they were presented to the court or judge by whom the writ of error was allowed:*Proviso*.Damages, etc., if no reasonable ground for certiorari. *Provided*, That where in such a case there appears to be no reasonable ground for granting a petition for certiorari it shall be competent for the Supreme Court to adjudge to the respondent reasonable damages for his delay, and single or double costs, as[R. S., sec. 1010, p. 189](/us/rs/s1010/p189).Direct review of action of district courts in specified Acts limited.Vol. 38, p. 804, amended.Expediting antitrust, etc., cases.Vol. 32, p. 823. provided in section 1010 of the Revised Statutes.” “Sec. 238. A direct review by the Supreme Court of an interlocutory or final judgment or decree of a district court may be had where it is so provided in the following Acts or parts of Acts, and not otherwise: “(1) Section 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903, ‘to expedite the hearing and determination ’ of certain suits brought by the United States under the antitrust or interstate commerce laws, and so forth. “(2) Adverse decisions in criminal cases.Vol. 34, p. 1246. The Act of March 2, 1907, ‘providing for writs of error in certain instances in criminal cases’ where the decision of the district court is adverse to the United States. “(3) Restricting interlocutory injunctions againt State laws, etc.Vol. 37, p. 1013, amended. An Act restricting the issuance of interlocutory injunctions to suspend the enforcement of the statute of a State or of an order made by an administrative board or commission created by and acting under the statute of a State, approved March 4, 1913, whichRequirement for presence of three judges, etc. Act is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof, ‘ The requirement respecting the presence of three judges shall also apply to the final hearing in such suit in the district court; and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction in such suit.’ “(4) Judgments, etc., on Interstate Commerce Commission orders.Vol. 38, p. 220. So much of ‘An Act making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in appropriations for the fiscal year 1913, and for other purposes,’ approved October 22, 1913, as relates to the review of interlocutory and final judgments and decrees in suits to enforce, suspend, or set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission other than for the payment of money. “(5) Orders by Interstate Commerce Commission as to livestock, poultry, etc.Vol. 42, p. 168. Section 316 of ‘An Act to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in livestock, livestock products, dairy products, poultry, poultry products, and eggs, and for other purposes’ approved August 15, 1921.” “Sec. 239. Questions certified for instructions by courts of appeals.Vol. 36, p. 1157, amended. In any case, civil or criminal, in a circuit court of appeals, or in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, the court at any time may certify to the Supreme Court of the UnitedAuthority of court. States any questions or propositions of law concerning which instructions are desired for the proper decision of the cause; and thereupon the Supreme Court may either give binding instructions on the questions and propositions certified or may require that the entire record in the cause be sent up for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been brought there by writ of error or appeal.” Sec. 240. Allowance of certiorari to courts of appeals on petition of either party.Vol. 36, p. 1157, amended.
(a)In any case, civil or criminal, in a circuit court of appeals, or in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the petition of any party thereto, whether Government or other litigant, to require by certiorari, either before or after a judgment939 or decree by such lower court, that the cause be certified to the Supreme Court for determination by it with the same power and authority, and with like effect, as if the cause had been brought there by unrestricted writ of error or appeal. “(b) Any case in a circuit court of appeals where is drawn inWrit of error or appeal allowed, where decision against validity of State law as repugnant to United States Constitution, etc. question the validity of a statute of any State, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is against its validity, may, at the election of the party relying on such State statute, be taken to the Supreme Court for review on writ of error or appeal; but in that event aLimitation. review on certiorari shall not be allowed at the instance of such party, and the review on such writ of error or appeal shall be restricted to an examination and decision of the Federal questions presented in the case. “(c) No judgment or decree of a circuit court of appeals or of the Court of Appeals ofNo other review by Supreme Court. the District of Columbia shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court otherwise than as provided in this section.” " Sec. 2. That cases in a circuit court of appeals under section 8 ofCertiorari, etc., allowed.Railway employees arbitrations.Vol. 38, p. 107.Trade Commission orders.Vol. 38, p. 720. “An Act providing for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration in controversies between certain employers and their employees,” approved July 15, 1913; under section 5 of “An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,” approved September 26, 1914; and under section 11 of “An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraintsClayton Act enforcement.Vol. 38, p. 735. and monopolies, and for other purposes,” approved October 15, 1914, are included among the cases to which sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code shall apply. Sec. 3.
(a)That in any case in the Court of Claims, includingCourt of Claims.May certify to Supreme Court questions of law for instruction. those begun under section 180 of the Judicial Code, that court at any time may certify to the Supreme Court any definite and distinct questions of law concerning which instructions are desired for the proper disposition of the cause: and thereupon the Supreme Court may give appropriate instructions on the questions certified and transmit the same to the Court of Claims for its guidance in the further progress of the cause.
(b)In any case in the Court of Claims, including those begun underCertiorari by either party of any cause for review and determination. section 180 of the Judicial Code, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court, upon the. petition of either party, whether Government or claimant, to require, by certiorari, that the cause, including the findings of fact and the judgment or decree, but omitting the evidence, be certified to it for review and determination with the same power and authority, and with like effect, as if the cause had been brought there by appeal.
(c)All judgments and decrees of the Court of Claims shall beNo other review of judgments. subject to review by the Supreme Court as provided in this section, and not otherwise. Sec. 4. That in cases in the district courts wherein they exerciseClaims cases in district courts subject to like review as other judgments. concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Claims or adjudicate claims against the United States the judgments shall be subject to review in the circuit courts of appeals like other judgments of the district courts; and sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code shall apply to*Ante*, p. 938. such cases in the circuit courts of appeals as to other cases therein. Sec. 5. That the Court of Appeals of the District ofDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals.Jurisdiction of, like circuit court of appeals. Columbia shall have the same appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over proceedings, controversies, and cases in bankruptcy in the District of Columbia that a circuit court of appeals has over such proceedings, controversies, and cases within its circuit, and shall exercise that jurisdiction in the same manner as a circuit court of appeals is required to exercise it. 940 Sec. 6. Habeas corpus.Circuit courts of appeals to review final orders for.
(a)In a proceeding in habeas corpus in a district court, or before a district judge or a circuit judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the circuit court of appeals of the circuit wherein the proceeding is had. A circuit judge shall have the same power to grant writs of habeas corpus within his circuit that a district judge has within his district; and the order of the circuit judge shall lie entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.
(b)By District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In such a proceeding in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or before a justice thereof, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the Court of Appeals of that District.
(c)Authority of Supremo Court.*Ante*, p. 938. Sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code shall apply to habeas corpus cases in the circuit courts of appeals and in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia as to other cases therein.
(d)Circuit courts of appeals jurisdiction in State court cases.[R. S., secs. 765, 766, p. 144](/us/rs/s765/766/p144).Vol. 35, p. 40. The provisions of sections 765 and 766 of the Revised Statutes, and the provisions of an Act entitled “An Act restricting in certain cases the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceedings,” approved March 10, 1908, shall apply to appellate proceedings under this section as they heretofore have applied to direct appeals to the Supreme Court. Sec. 7. Philippine Islands.Cases where certiorari from Supremo Court allowed. That in any case in the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands wherein the Constitution, or any statute or treaty of the United States is involved, or wherein the value in controversy exceeds $25,000, or wherein the title or possession of real estate exceedingVol. 36, p. 1158. in value the sum of $25,000 is involved or brought in question, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the petition of a party aggrieved by the final judgment or decree, to require, by certiorari, that the cause be certified to it for review and determination with the same power and authority, and with like effect, as if the cause had been brought before it on writ of error orNo other appellate review allowed. appeal; and, except as provided in this section, the judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands shall not be subject to appellate review. Sec. 8. Time limit for bringing Judgments to Supremo Court for review.
(a)That no writ of error, appeal, or writ of certiorari, intended to bring any judgment or decree before the Supreme Court for review shall be allowed or entertained unless application therefor be duly made within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree, excepting that writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands may be granted where application therefor is*Proviso*.Extension for cause. made within six months: *Provided*, That for good cause shown either of such periods for applying for a writ of certiorari may be extended not exceeding sixty days by a justice of the Supreme Court.
(b)Certiorari allowed prior to hearing in courts of appeals. Where an application for a writ of certiorari is made with the purpose of securing a removal of the case to the Supreme Court from a circuit court of appeals or the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia before the court wherein the same is pending has given a judgment or decree the application may be made at any time prior to the hearing and submission in that court.
(c)Time limit to apply for review by circuit ourts of appeals. No writ of error or appeal intended to bring any judgment or decree before a circuit court of appeals for review shall be allowed unless application therefor be duly made within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree.
(d)Judgments may be stayed in cases subject to certiorari from Supreme Court. In any case in which the final judgment or decree of any court is subject to review by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, the execution and enforcement of such judgment or decree may be stayed for a reasonable time to enable the party aggrieved to apply for and to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court.Surety to be given, etc. The stay may be granted by a judge of the court rendering the judgment or decree or by a justice of the Supreme Court, and may be conditioned on the giving of good and sufficient security, to be941 approved by such judge or justice, that if the aggrieved party fails to make application for such writ within the period allotted therefor, or fails to obtain an order granting his application, or fails to make his plea good in the Supreme Court, he shall answer for all damages and costs which the other party may sustain by reason of the stay. Sec. 9. That in any case where the power to review, whether inAscertainment of value not disclosed upon record, if jurisdiction depends on amount thereof. the circuit courts of appeals or in the Supreme Court, depends upon the amount or value in controversy, such amount or value, if not otherwise satisfactorily disclosed upon the record, may be shown and ascertained by the oath of a party to the cause or by other competent evidence. Appellate courts.No case dismissed, solely for mistake of procedure.Vol. 39, p. 727. Sec. 10. That no court having power to review a judgment or decree of another shall dismiss a writ of error solely because an appeal should have been taken, or dismiss an appeal solely because a writ of error should have been sued out; but where such error occurs the same shall be disregarded and the court shall proceed as if in that regard its power to review were properly invoked. Action if Federal, etc., officer dies while suit pending. Sec. 11.
(a)That where, during the pendency of an action, suit, or other proceeding brought by or against an officer of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or the Canal Zone, or of a Territory or an insular possession of the United States, or of a county, city, or other governmental agency of such Territory or insular possession, and relating to the present or future discharge of his official duties, such officer dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases toCause continued, and successor substituted if subtantial need therefor. hold such office, it shall be competent for the court wherein the action, suit, or proceeding is pending, whether the court be one of first instance or an appellate tribunal, to permit the cause to be continued and maintained by or against the successor in office of such officer, if within six months after his death or separation from the office it be satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining the cause and obtaining an adjudication of the questions involved.
(b)Similar proceedings may be had and taken where an action,Similar action as to State, etc., officer. suit, or proceeding brought by or against an officer of a State, or of a county, city, or other governmental agency of a State, is pending in a court of the United States at the time of the officer’s death or separation from the office.
(c)Before a substitution under this section is made, the partyNotice of proposed substitution to be given. or officer to be affected, unless expressly consenting thereto, must be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to present any objection which he may have. Federal incorporation not a ground for action in district courts. Sec. 12. That no district court shall have jurisdiction of any action or suit by or against any corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an Act of Congress: *Provided*, That*Proviso*.Except if Government principal owner of stock. this section shall not apply to any suit, action, or proceeding brought by or against a corporation incorporated by or under an Act of Congress wherein the Government of the United States is the owner of more than one-half of its capital stock. Laws repealed. Sec. 13. That the following statutes and parts of statutes be, and they are, repealed: Judicial Code sections. Sections 130, 131, 133, 134, 181, 182, 236, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, and 252 of the Judicial Code. Appellate jurisdiction, court of appeals to Supreme Court.Vol. 38, pp. 803, 804. Sections 2, 4, and 5 of “An Act to amend an Act entitled ‘An Act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary,’ approved March 3, 1911,” approved January 28, 1915. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of “An Act to amend the Judicial Code,Writs of error to Supreme Court.Vol. 39, p. 726. to fix the time when the annual term of the Supreme Court shall commence, and further to define the jurisdiction of that court,” approved September 6, 1916. 942 Judgments of Philippine Supreme Court.Vol. 39, p. 555.Section 27 of “An Act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous governmentReview by Supreme Court of suits against the United States.Vol. 24, pp. 506, 507. for those islands,” approved August 29, 1916. So much of sections 4, 9, and 10 of “An Act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States,” approved March 3, 1887, as provides for a review by the Supreme Court on writ of error or appeal in the cases therein named. Direct appeal in habeas corpus.Vol. 35, p. 40.So much of “An Act restricting in certain cases the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceedings,” approved March 10, 1908, as permits a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Review of bankruptcy cases.Vol. 30, p. 553.So much of sections 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, as regulates the mode of review by the Supreme Court in the proceedings, controversies, and cases therein named. Porto Rico courts.Vol. 39, p. 966.So much of “An Act to provide a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1917, as permits a direct review by the Supreme Court of cases in the courts in Porto Rico. Hawaii courts.Vol. 42, p. 120.So much of the Hawaiian Organic Act, as amended by the Act of July 9, 1921, as permits a direct review by the Supreme Court of cases in the courts in Hawaii. Canal Zone district courts.Vol. 37, p. 566.So much of section 9 of the Act of August 24, 1912, relating to the government of the Canal Zone as designates the cases in which, and the courts by which, the judgments and decrees of the district court of the Canal Zone may be reviewed. Bankruptcy appeals.[R. S., secs. 763, 764, p. 143](/us/rs/s763/764/p143).Vol. 23, p. 437.Sections 763 and 764 of the Revised Statutes. Actions against Federal officers.Vol. 30, p. 822.Contracts repugnant to the Constitution.Vol. 42, p. 366.Transfers of appeals and writs of error.Vol. 42. p. 837.All other inconsistent Acts, etc.An Act entitled “An Act amending section 764 of the Revised Statutes,” approved March 3, 1885. An Act entitled “An Act to prevent the abatement of certain actions,” approved February 8, 1899. An Act entitled “An Act to amend section 237 of the Judicial Code,” approved February 17, 1922. An Act entitled “An Act to amend the Judicial Code in reference to appeals and writs of error,” approved September 14, 1922. All other Acts and parts of Acts in so far as they are embraced within and superseded by this Act or are inconsistent therewith. Sec. 14. Effective in three months.Pending cases in Supreme Court, etc., not affected. That this Act shall take effect three months after its approval; but it shall not affect cases then pending in the Supreme Court, nor shall it affect the right to a review, or the mode or time for exercising the same, as respects any judgment or decree entered prior to the date when it takes effect. Approved, February 13, 1925.