A creditor having a mechanic's lien upon the property of the bankrupt may file a petition to enforce it in a State court, even after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, when such filing may be necessary in order to keep the lien alive. Pending the bankruptcy proceedings, no order can be made on this petition for the sale of the property to satisfy the lien of the petitioner. The rights of the creditor will be preserved, and all Interference with the custody or jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court avoided by ordering the petition to stand continued in the State court to await the result of the action of the district court in the proceedings in bankruptcy. Clifton et al. v. Foster et al., 3 B. R. 656; s. c. 103 Mass. 233; in re Cook & Gleason, 3 Biss. 116; Douglass v. St. Louis Zinc Co., 56 Mo. 388.

Although a creditor has obtained a lien on the personal property of the bankrupt, yet he can not proceed to examine the bankrupt in a State court to discover such property. In re Samuel T. Taylor, 16 B. R. 40.

The following proceedings, instituted after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, have been enjoined by the district court, to-wit: The sale of property by the sheriff, under an execution issued from a State court upon a levy made after the petition in bankruptcy was filed. Pennington v. Sale & Phelan et al., 1 B. R. 572; Jones v. Leach et al., 1 B. R. 595; in re Wallace, 2 B. R. 134; s. c. 1 Deady, 433; in re John S. Foster, 2 Story, 131; in re Bellows & Peck, 3 Story, 428.

Proceedings by a mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage on the property of the bankrupt. In re Kerosene Oil Co., 2 B. R. 528; s. c. 3 B. R. 125; s. c. 3 Ben. 35; s. c. 6 Blatch. 521; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 79; in re Snedaker, 3 B. R. 629; Markson v. Heaney, 4 B. R. 510; s. c. 1 Dillon, 497; Whitman v. Butler, 8 B. R. 487; Buckingham v. McLean, 3 McLean, 185; s. c. 13 How. 151.

A libel in rem, brought to enforce a lien against a vessel. In re People's Mail Steamship Co., 2 B. R. 553; s. c. 2 Ben. 226. Contra, The Ironsides, 4 Biss. 518.

Proceedings on the part of a landlord to collect rent by distraint. Brock v. Terrel, 2 B. R. 643; in re Wynne, 4 B. R. 23; s. c. Chase, 227; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 116; s. c. 9 A. L. Reg. 627. Vide Butler v. Morgan, 8 W. & S. 53.

Proceedings under a State insolvent law. In re Eames, 2 Story, 322. The assignee of a bankrupt is not the assignee of his creditors, nor of all the judgments, executions, liens and mortgages outstanding against his property. He takes only the bankrupt's interest in property, nor has he the right, title or interest, which other parties have therein, nor any control over the same, further than is given expressly by the bankruptcy act, as auxiliary for the preservation of the bankrupt's interest for the benefit of his general creditors. It would be absurd to contend that the assignee becomes ipso facto seized in entirety as trustee of every article of ⚫ property in which the bankrupt has any interest or share. Goddard v. Weaver, 6 B. R. 440; s. c. 1 Woods, 257.

Where the levy of an execution is made before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy the possession of the sheriff can not be disturbed by the assignee. The latter in such case is only entitled to such residue as may remain after the debt for which the execution issued has been satisfied. Marshall v. Knox, 8 B. R. 97; s. c. 16 Wall. 551; Savage v.

Best, 3 How. 111; Norton v. Boyd, 3 How. 426; Doremus v. Walker, 8 Ala. 194; Fritsch v. Van Mittledorfer, 2 Cinn. 261; Fehley v. Barr, 66 Penn. 196; Thompson v. Moses, 43 Ga. 383; Goddard v. Weaver, 6 B. R. 440; s. c. 1 Woods, 257; Maris v. Duren, 1 Brewst. 428; s. c. 6 Phila. 327; in re Donaldson, 1 B. R. 181; s. c. 1 L. T. B. 5; s. c. 7 A. L. Reg. 213; s. c. 6 Phila. 143; in re Smith et al., 1 B. R. 599; s. c. 2 Ben. 432; s. c. 1 L. T. B. 112; in re Wilbur, 3 B. R. 276; s. c. 1 Ben. 527; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 171; in re Campbell, 1 B. R. 165; s. c. 1 Abb. C. C. 185; s. c. 1 L. T. B. 30; s. c. 6 Phila. 445; in re Burns, 1 B. R. 174; s. c. 7 A. L. Reg. 105; s. c. 6 Phila. 448. Vide Turner v. The Skylark, 4 Biss. 388; in re Schnepf, 1 B. R. 190; s. c. 2 Ben. 72; Lewis v. Fisk, 6 Rob. (La.) 159.

The sheriff must proceed to sell the property, unless he is prevented by some proceeding instituted in the bankruptcy court for the purpose of liquidating the lien and adjusting all claims and equities. Sharman v. Howell, 40 Ga. 257; Wheeler v. Redding, 55 Ga. 87.

The sheriff is liable to the execution creditor if he relinquishes the custody of the property upon the mere demand of the marshal and exhibition of the warrant. Ansonia B. & C. Co. v. Babbitt, 15 N. Y. Supr. 157.

When a receiver, appointed by a State court before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, has taken possession of the property which belonged to the bankrupt, and the jurisdiction of the State court over the subject-matter of the suit thereon, and over the parties thereto when it was instituted and the receiver was appointed, and its jurisdiction to appoint such receiver are in no manner impeached or questioned, the district court can not compel the receiver to give up the possession of such property without its being shown that such possession of the property by the State court is void or invalid by reason of the provisions of the bankruptcy act. In re Clark et al., 3 B. R. 491; s. c. 4 Ben. 88; Clark v. Binninger, 3 B. R. 518; s. c. 38 How. Pr. 341; s. c. 3 L. T. B. 49; Sedgwick v. Minck et al., 1 B. R. 675; s. c. 6 Blatch. 156; Alden v. Boston, Hartford & Erie R. R. Co., 5 B. R. 230; Davis v. Railroad Co., 13 B. R. 258; s. c. 1 Woods, 661.

Proceedings in bankruptcy supersede all other proceedings for the administration of the assets of the debtor, subject only to the priorities which have been obtained by any creditor by the use of diligence. In re R. M. Whipple, 13 B. R. 373; s. c. 6 Biss. 516.

A creditor who has filed a creditor's bill in the State court and obtained the appointment of a receiver, prior to the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, may be enjoined from proceeding further in the State court. Ibid.

When a State court has acquired jurisdiction over the parties to a creditor's bill and appointed a receiver, before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, it will not on a mere motion direct a delivery of the property to the assignee. Freeman, v. Fort, 14 B. R. 46; s. c. 52 Ga. 371.

If a receiver is appointed by a State court in a suit by stockholders against a corporation, the court will not at the instance of creditors, on the subsequent bankruptcy of the corporation, discharge the receiver and

turn the property over to the assignee. Myer v. Crystal Works, 14 B. R. 9; s. c. 8 C. L. N. 197.

Where a receiver has been appointed by a State court in a proceeding for the dissolution of a partnership prior to the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy against the firm, the court has the right to finish its proceedings before being interfered with by any other court. If the assignee has rights, or is entitled to the fund, his right and title can be and will be disposed of by the State court as the law shall direct. Miller v. Bowles, 9 B. R. 354; s. c. 10 B. R. 515; s. c. 2 N. Y. Supr. 568; s. c. 58 N. Y. 253; Clark v. Binninger, 39 How. Pr. 363.

The plaintiff in such a suit for a dissolution of partnership can not have the decree appointing a receiver rescinded and the property turned over to an assignee. Miller v. Bowles, 9 B. R. 354; s. c. 10 B. R. 515; s. c. 2 N. Y. Supr. 568; s. c. 58 N. Y. 253.

If the assignee has filed a bill to set aside a sale made by a receiver, he must elect whether he will proceed with it or claim the fund. He can not go upon the property and the fund both. Loudon v. Blanford, 56 Ga. 150.

If a receiver has been appointed, the State court will retain control of the property until it shall be applied to the partnership debts, although the assignee of the partnership property, who has been subrogated to the rights of both the plaintiff and defendant, asks that the suit may be discontinued, and the property delivered to him. Clark v. Binninger, 39 How. Pr. 363.

Parties in a State court may be enjoined from obtaining a writ of sequestration to take property from the possession of the assignee, although the suit was instituted before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Hewitt v. Norton, 13 B. R. 276; s. c. 1 Woods, 68.

The district court has no authority to withdraw cases instituted in a State court before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy from the State courts, and proceed to settle and adjust the claims of the parties thereto. Congress could, no doubt, have made adjudication in bankruptcy operate proprio vigore to withdraw all cases in which the bankrupt should be a party pending in the State courts in the district at the time of the filing of the petition, from those tribunals, and transfer them into the district court. It has not, however, done so. It not only has not deprived the State courts of jurisdiction over such causes, but it has provided for their prosecution and defense in those courts by the assignee. Samson v. Burton et al., 4 B. R. 1; s. c. 5 Ben. 325. Vide Clarke v. Rosenda, 5 Rob. (La.) 27; Lewis v. Fish, 6 Rob. (La.) 159.

Full force and efficacy may be given to that clause in the bankruptcy act which confers on the district courts of the United States jurisdiction over the ascertainment and liquidation of liens, without taking from the courts under whose process they exist the power of rendering special judgments necessary to complete them. Leighton v. Kelsey et al., 4 B. R. 471; s. c. 57 Me. 85.

Proceedings to enforce the lien of a creditor pending at the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy are not affected thereby, but the cred

itor may proceed to obtain satisfaction of his lien. Baum v. Stern, 1 Rich. (N. S.) 415. Contra, Taylor v. Bonnett, 38 Tex. 521.

The jurisdiction of the district court over proceedings for the condemnation of property under the internal revenue laws is not divested by the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy against the distiller. U. S. v. Mackoy, 2 Dillon, 299.

The State court may distribute the money which the sheriff holds on process which was issued to him before the filing of the petition. Weld v. O'Brien, 4 A. L. J. 364; In re Campbell, 1 B. R. 165; s. c. 1 Abb. C. C. 185; s. c. 1 L. T. B. 30; s. c. 6 Phila. 445.

When the State court has jurisdiction to enforce a lien and sell the property, it may distribute any surplus that may remain after the payment of the lien among subsequent lien creditors. The power to enforce the lien gives the right to decree a distribution. In re Biddle's Appeal, 9 B. R. 144; s. c. 68 Penn. 13.

The assignee takes the rights of the debtor in the same plight and condition as the debtor himself possessed them, and the purchaser from him will be bound by a decree for a partition rendered before the filing of the petition. Baum v. Stern, 1 Rich. (N. S.) 415.

The assignee of the judgment debtor is the proper party to move to set aside sales made under an execution issued thereon when the same are irregular aud void. Pardee v. Leitch, 6 Lans. 303.

The court where a judgment is rendered is the proper, and, indeed, the only court where a motion can be made to amend it, and such amendment may be made, although the defendant has been declared a bankrupt, and the proceedings in bankruptcy are pending at the time when the motion is made. Woolfolk v. Gunn, 10 B. R. 526; s. c. 45 Ga. 117.

Although a fì. fa. is issued prior to the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, yet if the property taken thereunder is, by the consent of the creditor, the debtor and the sheriff, sold after that time, the proceeds must be turned over to the assignee, for they do not come into the State court by final process. Morris v. Davidson, 11 B. R. 454; s c. 49 Ga. 361.

Where a sheriff who is selling the goods at private sale with the consent of the mortgagor and mortgagee, under a mortgage fi. fa. receives a general fi. fa. before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, the proceeds arising from private sales, after that time, are before the State court, as money raised on final process, and may be distributed to the judgment creditor and not to the assignee. Dyson v. Harper, 54 Ga. 282.

The filing of a petition in bankruptcy, and the execution of an assignment to the assignee after the filing of a bill in equity is a sufficient excuse for not making an assignment to a receiver appointed by the State court. Watkins v. Pinkney, 3 Edw. Ch. 533.

The mere filing of the petition in bankruptcy is no ground for refusing to execute an assignment to a receiver appointed in a suit instituted prior to that time, for the debtor may withdraw his petition, and thus defeat the jurisdiction of both courts. Ibid.

If a creditor prior to the commencement of proceedings in pankruptcy has filed a bill in a State court to reach the equitable assets of the debtor,

and has thereby obtained a lien thereon, he may continue the suit. Clark v. Rist, 3 McLean, 494.

The jurisdiction of a State court over a pending action to enforce a mechanic's lien is not divested by proceedings in bankruptcy. Seibel v. Simeon, 62 Mo. 255.

A State court is not divested of jurisdiction over a pending action to enforce a vendor's lien by the bankruptcy of the vendee. Boone v. Revis, 44 Tex. 384.

The district court will not allow a creditor to avail himself of any unjust and unlawful advantage merely because his suit is depending in a State court, for the laws of the United States are to the extent of the constitutional limits paramount to the authority of those of the States. In re Bellows & Peck, 3 Story, 428.

Where the power of a State court to proceed in a suit is subject to be impeached, it can not be done. except upon, an intervention by the assignee, who must state the facts and make the proof necessary to terminate such jurisdiction. Doe v. Childress, 11 B. R. 317; s. c. 21 Wall. 643.

The district court can not entertain an action brought by the assignee against a sheriff to recover the money received on a sale under an execution issued on a judgment which is void under the bankruptcy law. . Atkinson v. Purdy, Crabbe, 551.

If the property of the bankrupt has been sold under an execution issued upon a judgment which is void under the bankruptcy law, the assignee should apply to the State court. Atkinson v. Purdy, Crabbe, 751; in re Burns, 1 B. R. 174; s. c. 7 A. L. Reg. 105; s. c. 6 Phila. 448.

If the assignee receives property which the marshal has taken from the possession of the sheriff and sells it, the judgment creditor can not maintain an action in a State court for the amount of his judgment, for a State court has no jurisdiction to liquidate a lien. Ansonia B. & C. Co. v. Pratt, 17 N. Y. Supr. 443.