under the direction of the court, and close it up as expeditiously as compatible with the best interests of the parties in interest (sec. 47), or the case may be referred to the referee for this action. The convenience of the parties in interest may be consulted and the case referred to any referee in the judicial district of the court, although there may be another referee in the bankruptcy district in which the petition was filed, and for cause. or at the instance of parties, may change the reference from one referee to another. (Sec. 22, b.) The jurisdiction and duties of a referee are found in sections 38 and 39. The record and findings of the referee may be modified, overruled or returned by the court with instructions for further proceedings by the referee. (Sec. 2—10.)

b. The judge may, at any time, for the convenience of parties or for cause, transfer a case from one referee to another.

In case of the transfer from one referee to another, the judge shall determine the proportion in which the fee and commissions therefor shall be divided between the referees. (Sec. 40, b.)

The court ordered a case removed from a register because it was shown that he had attempted to influence the choice of an assignee. (In re Smith, 1 N. B. R. 25; 2 Ben. 113; Fed. Cas. 12971.)

Sec. 23. Jurisdiction of United States and state courts. a. The United States circuit courts shall have jurisdiction of all controversies at law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, between trustees as such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or claimed by the trustees, in the same manner and to the same extent only as though bankruptcy proceedings had not been instituted and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants. /781 s. 524

1117ed 892 [Act of 1867. SEC. 2. That the several circuit courts of the United States, within and for the districts where the proceedings in bankruptcy shall be pending, shall have a general superintendence and jurisdiction of all cases and questions arising under this act; and, except when special provision is otherwise made, may, upon bill, petition, or other proper process, of any party aggrieved, hear and determine the case in a court of equity. Said circuit courts shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of the same district of all suits at law or in equity

which may or shall be brought by the assignee in bankruptcy against any person claiming an adverse interest, or by such person against such assignee, touching any property or rights of property of said bankrupt transferable to or vested in such assignee; but no suit at law or in equity shall in any case be maintainable by or against such assignee, or by or against any person claiming an adverse interest, touching the property and rights of property aforesaid, in any court whatsoever, unless the same shall be brought within two years from the time the cause of action accrued, for or against such assignee.]

For provisions with reference to proceedings in law and equity, see Orders 37. The jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States is set forth in U. S. Rev. Stat., §§ 629-657, as amended by the act of August 13, 1888 (1 Supp. U. S. Rev. Stat. 611), and the acts specified in note 1 thereto.

b. Suits by the trustee shall only be brought or prosecuted in the courts where the bankrupt, whose estate is being administered by such trustee, might have brought or prosecuted them if proceedings in bankruptcy had not been instituted, unless by consent of the proposed defendant.

c. The United States circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of bankruptcy, within their respective territorial limits, of the offenses enumerated in this Act.

Courts of bankruptcy are invested, within their territorial limits, with jurisdiction to arraign, try and punish bankrupts, officers and other persons, and the agents, officers, members of the board of directors or trustees, or other similar controlling bodies, of corporations for violations of this act, in accordance with the laws of procedure of the United States now in force, or such as may hereafter be enacted, regulating trials for the alleged violation of laws of the United States. (Sec. 2-4.) The offenses for which a penalty is attached and punishment to be inflicted are set forth under section 29.

Jurisdiction of circuit courts.-The United States circuit court has jurisdiction of an action brought by an assignee to recover a debt due the bankrupt's estate in a state other than that in which proceedings in bankruptcy are pending (Payson v. Dietz, 8 N. B. R. 193; 5 Chi. Leg. News, 434; 30 Leg. Int. 313; Fed. Cas. 10861; Burbank v. Bigelow et al., Ass., 14 N. B. R. 445; 92 U. S. 179); of a proceeding by the assignee to procure the delivery to him of property which the bankrupt had offered to be taken by legal process with intent to give preference (In re Ballou,

3 N. B. R. 177; 4 Ben. 135; Fed. Cas. 818); or a bill filed by the United States to obtain payment out of a trust fund, held by a trustee, appointed in proceedings in bankruptcy. (Lewis, Trustee, v. United States, 14 N. B. R. 64; 92 U. S. 618.) It will entertain a bill by an assignee in bankruptcy against several mortgagees and other lienholders to ascertain the amount due, and sell all the property free from incumbrances. (Sutherland et al. v. L. S. S. C. R. & I. Co., 9 N. B. R. 298; 1 Cent. Law J. 127; Fed. Cas. 13643.) United States circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a case at law or in equity in which the state is plaintiff against its citizens, it not being conferred by the constitution or by an act of congress. (State of North Carolina v. Trustees of University et al., 5 N. B. R. 466; 1 Hughes, 133; Fed. Cas. 10318.)

Suits in other districts.- An assignee in bankruptcy can bring a suit in a United States district court, other than that in which bankruptcy proceedings are pending, to recover back money alleged to have been paid in violation of the Bankrupt Act. (Shearman v. Bingham et al., 7 N. B. R. 490; Goodall v. Tuttle, 7 N. B. R. 193; 3 Biss. 219; 5 Amer. Law T. Rep. (U. S. Ct.) 240; 7 West. Jur. 32; 4 Chi. Leg. News. 473; Fed. Cas. 5533. But see Jobbins v. Montague, 6 N. B. R. 509; Fed. Cas. 7330.)

Personal conduct of federal judges.- In the discharge of their functions, the personal conduct and administration of the federal judges need not conform to the practice in the state courts. (Nudd et al. v. Burrows, Ass., 13 N. B. R. 289; 91 U. S. 426.)

When federal courts will enjoin proceedings in state courts.Courts of bankruptcy will only interfere by summary order to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction between the officers of state courts and those of the court of bankruptcy when such conflict clearly appears to exist. (In re Davidson, 2 N. B. R. 49; 2 Ben. 506; Fed. Cas. 3598.) Their jurisdiction extends to the enjoining of state court bankruptcy proceedings, though the latter were commenced prior to the filing of the petition in the bankrupt court. (In re Citizens' Savings Bank, 9 N. B. R. 152; Fed. Cas. 2735.) They will not interpose by injunction to restrain proceedings against a bankrupt in a state court unless bankruptcy proceedings are pending therein (In re Richardson, 2 N. B. R. 74; 2 Ben. 517; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 20; Fed. Cas. 11774); but as soon as such proceedings are commenced, it acquires sole jurisdiction and may enjoin further proceedings in other courts. (Penny v. Taylor, 10 N. B. R. 200; Fed. Cas. 10957; Samson v. Burton, 4 N. B. R. 1; Fed. Cas. 12285; In re Fuller, 4 N. B. R. 29; 2 Chi. Leg. News, 575; Fed. Cas. 5148; In re Vogel, 2 N. B. R. 138; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 210; Fed. Cas. 16953; Zahm v. Fry et al., 9 N. B. R. 546; 10 Phila. 243; 31 Leg. Int. 197; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 155; Fed. Cas 18198; In re Ulrich et al., 8 N. B. R. 15; Fed. Cas. 14328; In re Wallace, 2 N. B. R. 52; Deady, 433; 3 Amer. Law Rev. 174; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 30; Fed. Cas. 17094; Keenan v. Shannon et al., 9 N. B. R. 441; 10 Phila. 219; 31 Leg. Int. 85; Fed. Cas. 7610; In re Bloss, 4 N. B. R. 37; Fed. Cas. 1562; In re Sady Bryan Mining Co., 6 N. B. R. 252; Fed. Cas. 7980.) It will

restrain defendants to whom a bankrupt had fraudulently assigned his property from interfering with the assigned property or the proceeds thereof (Sedgwick v. Menck et al., 1 N. B. R. 108; Fed. Cas. 12167; In re Holland, Jr., 12 N. B. R. 403; 1 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 126; Fed. Cas. 6605); and will restrain a litigant in a state court from doing that which would frustrate or directly impede the jurisdiction conferred by the act. (Irving v. Hughes, 2 N. B. R. 20; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 209; 6 Phila. 451; 24 Leg. Int. 360; 15 Pittsb. Leg. J. 121; Fed. Cas. 7076.)

The circuit court has power to grant an injunction to restrain an action of trover against a marshal for taking possession, under a warrant in bankruptcy, of certain goods claimed by the party bringing the action (Hudson, Ass., v. Schwab et al., 18 N. B. R. 480; 26 Pittsb. Leg. J. 140; Fed. Cas. 6835); but a circuit court of one district, in a suit by an assignee appointed by a district court in another state, cannot enjoin a suit to foreclose a mortgage in the state court of a third state. (Markson et al. v. Heaney, 4 N. B. R. 165; 3 Chi. Leg. News, 153; Fed. Cas. 9098.)

When federal court will not interfere.-The bankrupt court will not interfere with the possession of receivers appointed by a state court in an action brought by one partner against the other for a settlement and winding up of the partnership, where the firm was subsequently adjudged bankrupt and an assignee appointed, who made application for an order directing the marshal to take possession of the joint property in the hands of the receivers. (In re Clark et al., 3 N. B. R. 130; 4 Ben. 88; Fed. Cas. 2798.)

How injunction applied for.-Injunctions in bankruptcy, at least when issued in the primary steps of the proceedings, may be allowed and issued without notice. (In re Muller et al., 3 N. B. R. 86; Deady, 513; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 33; Fed. Cas. 9912.) When issued on a creditor's petition, it should conform to the language of the statute. (In re Keiler et al., 18 N. B. R. 10; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 42; 9 West. Jur. 175; Fed. Cas. 7647.)

It is unnecessary to dissolve an injunction against suits in state courts conditioned and limited to the bankrupt's discharge. (In re Thomas, 3 N. B. R. 7; Fed. Cas. 13890.) It will not be granted where the grounds are alleged in the petition on information and belief merely, and the petition is not accompanied by affidavits sustaining the allegations. (In re Bloss, 4 N. B. R. 37; Fed. Cas. 1562.)

Injunction not granted in matters of composition.- It cannot suspend or deny the right of a creditor to receive a composition unless, in an action against the creditors, a specific lien upon the fund is claimed or a receiver has been appointed who has succeeded to the creditor's title. (In re Kohlsaat et al., 18 N. B. R. 570; Fed. Cas. 7918.) It will not restrain a creditor who objects to a composition from suing the debtor to recover a provable debt, unless the debtor surrenders himself to the court and abides by its adjudication. (In re Tifft, 18 N. B. R. 78; Fed.

Cas. 14031.) And, if a composition be entered into for cash payment, secured by a mortgage on realty, the district court has no jurisdiction to restrain a creditor from levying an execution on personal property, although the name of such creditor was properly placed on the list of creditors. (In re Lytle & Co., 14 N. B. R. 457; 11 Phila. 522; 3 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 303; 5 Amer. Law Rec. 306; 9 Chi. Leg. News, 18; 33 Leg. Int. 349; 1 Cin. Law Bul. 246; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 14; Fed. Cas. 8650.)

Injunction by state court.-A state court will not grant an injunction restraining a party from applying for the benefit of the Bankrupt Act of the United States (Fillingin v. Thornton, 12 N. B. R. 92); nor will it enjoin the assignee from collecting a note made payable to the bankrupt. (Southern et al. v. Fisher, Trustee, 16 N. B. R. 414.)

Discharge from arrest.-The bankrupt court has no power to discharge from custody a bankrupt held under arrest in an action of tort in the nature of deceit in obtaining possession of plaintiff's goods by means of false and fraudulent representations. (In re Devoe, 2 N. B. R. 11; 1 Lowell, 251; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 790; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 20; Fed. Cas. 3843.)

Jurisdiction in law and equity.— Under the Bankrupt Act, district courts have jurisdiction both in law and equity (In re Fendley, 10 N. B. R. 250; 3 Amer. Law Rec. 105; Fed. Cas. 4728; Smith v. Mason, 6 N. B. R. 1; In re Marter, 12 N. B. R. 185; Fed. Cas. 9143; In re Bonesteel, 3 N. B. R. 127; 7 Blatchf. 175; Fed. Cas. 1627); and suit therein may be brought by the assignee in bankruptcy against any person claiming an adverse interest, or by such person against such assignee, touching any property of the bankrupt transferable to or vested in such assignee. (Shearman v. Bingham et al., 7 N. B. R. 490; Harmanson, Ass., v. Bain et al., 15 N. B. R. 173; 1 Hughes, 188; Fed. Cas. 6072; Smith v. Mason, 6 N. B. R. 1; 14 Wall. 419; In re Krogman, 5 N. B. R. 116; Fed Cas. 7936.)

A suit in equity cannot be maintained for the sole reason that the plaintiff (assignee) cannot give the bond required in an action at law. (In re Oregon Iron Works, 17 N. B. R. 404; 4 Sawy. 169; 26 Pittsb. Leg. J. 8; Fed. Cas. 10562.) Where there has been no consummated conversion by the bankrupt of his wife's separate estate, the court will decree according to the equity of the case, and the same rule applies where the conversion has been consummated by fraud. (In re Campbell, 17 N. B. R. 4; 3 Hughes, 276; Fed. Cas. 2318.)

Limit to jurisdiction of bankrupt court.- The jurisdiction of the bankrupt court ceases with the granting of a discharge, and the plaintif may then apply to the state court for relief. (Penny v. Taylor, 10 N. B. R. 200; Fed. Cas. 10957.)

How assignee may proceed.— An assignee is not restricted to an action at law or suit in equity for the recovery of property fraudulently transferred by the bankrupt, but may resort to summary proceedings upon petition to the court in which bankruptcy proceedings are pending. (Bill, Ass., v. Beckwith et al., 2 N. B. R. 82; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 103;