Fed. Cas. 1406.) He may proceed by summary motion or petition, and need not resort to plenary suit to enforce payment against sureties on delivery bond in case of fraudulent sale. (Stores et al. v. Engel et al., Ex parte Garnett, Ass., 19 N. B. R. 90; Fed. Cas. 18494.)

When state courts have jurisdiction.—A state court has jurisdiction of an action brought by an assignee in bankruptcy to foreclose a mortgage (Burlingame, Ass., etc. v. Parce et al., 17 N. B. R. 246); or to set aside a mortgage executed by a bankrupt, in fraud of the Bankrupt Act (Isett v. Stuart, 16 N. B. R. 191; Gilbert v. Priest, 8 N. B. R. 159. But see Voorhees v. Frisbie, 8 N. B. R. 152); or an action by an assignee to collect a debt due to the estate (Russell, Ass., etc. v. Owen, 15 N. B. R. 322); and to recover money paid to a creditor as a preference (Claflin v. Houseman, 15 N. B. R. 49; 93 U. S. 130; Kemmerer v. Tool, 12 N. B. R. 334; Jordan, Ass., v. Downey, 12 N. B. R. 427; Goodrich v. Wilson, 14 N. B. R. 555); also by an assignee to recover property disposed of by the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act, and the United States courts have not exclusive jurisdiction of such action. (Peiper v. Harmer, 5 N. B. R. 252; 28 Leg. Int. 148; State v. Dewey, 5 N. B. R. 466; In re Cent. Nat. Bank, 6 N. B. R. 207; Fed. Cas. 2547; Gilbert v. Priest, 8 N. B. R. 159; and Dambmann v. White, 12 N. B. R. 438. Contra, Bingham v. Claflin, 7 N. B. R. 412; Voorhees v. Frisbie, 8 N. B. R. 152; Bromley v. Goodrich, 15 N. B. R. 289; Hotchkiss v. 14 N. B. R. 445; Cook v. Walter et al., 9 N. B. R. 155.)

It has jurisdiction of pending suits where there is nothing in them which requires the equitable interference of the district court to prevent any mischief or wrong to other creditors in bankruptcy, or any waste or misapplication of the assets, especially where there is no suggestion of fraud or injustice on the part of the plaintiffs (In re Davis, 8 N. B. R. 167; Fed. Cas. 3619); also in an action in law or in equity brought by an assignee, where the equity sought is such as is recognized by the laws of the state in which the action is brought, and not the mere creature of the Bankrupt Act (Voorhees v. Frisbie, 8 N. B. R. 152); also over all subjects arising out of the question whether the debt in litigation is, or not, embraced in the class or classes of liabilities from which the debtor is absolved, and upon which his discharge has no effect (Stevens v. Brown, 11 N. B. R. 568); and of an action to obtain possession of property which, at the time bankruptcy proceedings are instituted, is in the hands of the sheriff, under attachments issued out of the state courts (Johnson v. Bishop, 8 N. B. R. 533; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 77; Fed. Cas. 7373); of a suit brought on a note. (In re Mannheim, 7 N. B. R. 342; 6 Ben. 270; Fed. Cas. 9038.) A state court may enforce the lien of an attachment or the lien of a creditor upon property conveyed in fraud of creditors, or the lien of a partner upon partnership funds, and, having obtained lawful jurisdiction over the parties and subject-matter, they have the right to determine all questions as they arise, according to law, subject to the

final judgment of the United States Supreme Court, in case any right or claim is set up under any statute of the United States, and such right or claim is denied to them. (Mason et al. v. Warthen, 14 N. B. R. 346.)

The jurisdiction of a state court to foreclose a mortgage is not divested by proceedings in bankruptcy, where leave is granted by the bankrupt court, the assignee consenting, and the bankrupt mortgagor and his wife alone objecting (McHenry et al. v. La Societe Francaise, 16 N. B. R. 385; 95 U. S. 581); but where a bankrupt court orders a sale of mortgaged property, a state court has no jurisdiction to foreclose the mortgage. (In re Devore, 16 N. B. R. 56; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 185; Fed. Cas. 3847.) A mortgagee may proceed to foreclose his mortgage in a state court if the assignee does not seek to redeem the mortgaged property, and the proceeding to foreclose is not absolutely void. (Brown v. Gibbons, 13 N. B. R. 407; Reed v. Bullington, 11 N. B. R. 408.) A claimant of property taken from him by the marshal by virtue of a provisional warrant in bankruptcy proceedings commanding him to seize the property and effects of the bankrupt cannot be restrained from prosecuting an action in a state court against the marshal for the value and damages for the detention thereof. (In re Marks, 2 N. B. R. 175; 16 Pittsb. Leg. J. 12; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 245; Fed. Cas. 9095.) An attachment upon mesne process is a lien, and such a lien as can be enforced in a state court, notwithstanding bankruptcy proceedings, by a qualified judgment, limited in its operation to the property attached, and not to be enforced against the other property, or the person of the bankrupt. (Stoddard v. Locke et al., 9 N. B. R. 73.) Proving a debt and recovering dividends in bankruptcy against a corporation is no bar to recovering judgment for the balance in a state court. (Ansonia Brass and Copper Co. v. New Lamp Chimney Co., 10 N. B. R. 355.) The fact that bankruptcy proceedings have been begun in the federal court against a bankrupt does not give said court exclusive jurisdiction over actions against the marshal for trespass in seizing the property of a stranger as being that of a bankrupt (Marsh et al. v. Armstrong, 11 N. B. R. 125); of an action against an assignee for the tortious taking of property not in possession of the bankrupt and belonging to a stranger. (Leighton v. Harwood, 12 N. B. R. 360.) The adoption of a bankrupt law does not divest the state courts of jurisdiction over insolvent proceedings pending at the time of its adop tion. (Lavender v. Gosnell & Tripolett, 12 N. B. R. 282.)

Jurisdiction by state court does not bar bankrupt court.-Although state courts have jurisdiction under their statutes to settle and arrange the affairs and distribute the assets of an insolvent corporation, their jurisdiction is at an end the moment the corporation is adjudicated a bankrupt by the United States court, the jurisdiction of the latter in bankruptcy being an exclusive jurisdiction. (Watson v. Bank, 11 N. B. R. 161; 2 Hughes, 200; Fed. Cas. 17279.) After proceedings have been commenced in a state court by one of the members of a copartnership, to

put an end thereto, and for an account, and the property is in the hands of a receiver, it is competent for another member of the firm to file a petition in bankruptcy to have himself and the firm adjudged bankrupt. (In re Noonan, 10 N. B. R. 330; 5 Chi. Leg. News, 557; 30 Leg. Int. 425; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 73; Fed. Cas. 10292.)

Receiver appointed prior to bankruptcy proceedings.― Where proceedings were had under a state law having all the elements of a bankruptcy law, prior to the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, the mere acquisition of jurisdiction over the debtor, and appointment of a receiver who is in possession, is not sufficient ground for dismissing the petition (In re Green Pond R. R. Co., 13 N. B. R. 118; Fed. Cas. 5786); and an action in behalf of an assignee in bankruptcy, to compel a receiver appointed in the state court, in a creditor's suit, before the proceedings in bankruptcy, to deliver up the property to the assignee. (Myer et al. v. Crystal Lake Pickling and Preserving Works, 14 N. B. R. 9.) It has been held the United States district court in bankruptcy will not interfere with possession of receivers appointed by state court. (Alden v. Railroad Co., 5 N. B. R. 230; Fed. Cas. 152.) After the filing of a petition in involuntary bankruptcy no person can acquire any interest by a receivership created by a state court, or otherwise, in the property of the debtor, which the decree in bankruptcy will not displace or override. (Smith v. Buchanan et al., 4 N. B. R. 133; 3 Alb. Law J. 97; Fed. Cas. 13016.)

When state courts have no jurisdiction.-State courts have no jurisdiction to enforce a right or title acquired under foreign bankrupt laws, or foreign bankrupt proceedings, so far as it affects property within their jurisdiction or demands against residents of the state (Mosselman et al v. Caen, 10 N. B. R. 512); or where the bankruptcy court has acquired jurisdiction of the estate of a bankrupt, claims against him provable under the law, except specific liens upon his property, and legal or equitable claims of title thereto (Woolfolk v. Murray, 10 N. B. R. 540; Fed. Cas. 18028); over a suit of a creditor to set aside conveyances to insolvent's wife of property purchased with his funds and appropriate the proceeds to the payment of his debt, as the assignee in bankruptcy is a necessary party to the suit, as such rights and interests vest in him (Winters et al. v. Claitor et al., 18 N. B. R. 533); to withdraw property surrendered to a bankruptcy court, nor determine in any degree the manner of its disposition (In re Barrow, 1 N. B. R. 125; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 63; Fed. Cas. 1057); of action by creditor who proved his claim, voted upon the resolution of composition, and accepted his proportionate share in money and promissory notes, given in pursuance of said resolution to secure payment of future instalment (Deford et al. v. Hewlett, 18 N. B. R. 518); to garnish an assignee holding the warrant of the register to pay certain creditors at the instance of a creditor of one of the creditors named in the warrant (In re Bridgman, 2 N. B. R. 84; 1

i

Chi. Leg. News, 103; Fed. Cas. 1867); or of an action by a party who purchases a chose in action from the assignee, in his own name, where the laws of the state do not permit an assignee of a chose in action to sue in his own name. (Leach v. Greene, 12 N. B. R. 376.) A state court's jurisdiction does not extend to the administering of the assets of an insolvent bank whose charter has been declared forfeited; but the property of the corporation should be surrendered into a court of bankruptcy to be there administered upon (Thornhill et al. v. Bank, 3 N. B. R. 110; 3 Amer. Law T. 38; 2 Chi. Leg. News, 157; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 156; Fed. Cas. 13990); it cannot review the decision of a United States district court. (Maxwell v. McCune et al., 10 N. B. R. 306.)

A creditor who proves his debt and asserts his lien in the bankrupt court and participates as a party in the proceedings is not entitled to resort to a state tribunal to enforce his lien against the same property which was the subject of adjudication in the bankrupt court. (Spilman v. Johnson, 16 N. B. R. 145.) The executor of a judgment creditor moved in the state court for an execution. The debtor had been discharged in bankruptcy between the date of the judgment and the date of the mo tion, and the creditor had not proved in bankruptcy, although the claim was scheduled and notice was sent to the testatrix. Plaintiff claimed that the judgment roll of the superior court created a lien which the bankruptcy proceedings did not dissolve, and that he was entitled to enforce the lien in the state court. It was held that the bankrupt court did not divest the lien, but was the only proper tribunal to administer the remedy for the enforcement of the lien. (Blum v. Ellis, 13 N. B. R. 345.) Proceedings for discovery will not lie before a state officer, but must be taken in the bankruptcy court. (Ex parte Taylor, 16 N. B. R. 40; 1 Hughes, 617; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 205; Fed. Cas. 13773.) If an assignee under a state law has turned over the estate to the assignee in bankruptcy, the bankrupt law and not the state law governs. (In re Bonsfield & Poole Mfg. Co., 17 N. B. R. 153; Fed. Cas. 1704.) A state court has no authority to order a bank, in which funds belonging to a bankrupt's estate are deposited, to pay out of such funds a judgment rendered against the assignee. (Havens v. Bank, 13 N. B. R. 95.)

Collateral attack of decisions of bankrupt courts.- Every presumption is in favor of the validity of the adjudication, in a collateral action, where the bankrupt appears after due notice and makes no objection to the court's jurisdiction, and cannot be questioned. (New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Brass and Copper Co., 13 N. B. R. 385; 91 U. S. 656.) The validity of an order directing the payment of the balance due on subscriptions cannot be questioned in collateral action (Sanger v. Upton, Ass., 13 N. B. R. 226; 91 U. S. 56); nor can a discharge be impeached in a state court (Black v. Blazo, 13 N. B. R. 195; Alston v. Robinett, 9 N. B. R. 74; Corey v. Ripley, 4 N. B. R. 163); nor can the acts of an assignee in bankruptcy. (Morris et al. v. Swartz, 10 N. B. R. 305.) But it has been held that a state court

may impeach the jurisdiction of the bankrupt court. (Isett v. Stuart, 16 N. B. R. 191.) The question of whether an assignment under a state law is void may be raised in a collateral action. (Shryock et al. v. Bashore, 13 N. B. R. 481; Fed. Cas. 12820.) And if an assignee sells to a third person property in which the bankrupt had title at the time of adjudication of bankruptcy, no other court can inquire whether such property was exempt from the assignment in bankruptcy. (Steele v. Moody, 16 N. B. R. 558.)

United States district court cannot correct or annul judgment.— The United States district court has no jurisdiction to correct or annul, upon appeal or petition, a judgment which has been rendered in a state court; nor can it question the allegations filed in the said district court with a petition to restrain the sale of real estate for any cause that may be set forth. (In re Dunn, 11 N. B. R. 270; 2 Hughes, 169; Fed. Cas. 4172; McKinsey et al. v. Harding, 4 N. B. R. 10; Fed. Cas. 8866.)

Practice in state courts.-The Bankrupt Act is the law of the state courts as well as of the national tribunals, and if by virtue of that act the state court has no jurisdiction in an action brought, it will so decide upon proper plea (In re Central Bank, 6 N. B. R. 207; Fed. Cas. 2547); but a state court, passing upon claims of assignees in bankruptcy, is not proceeding under the Bankrupt Act, but simply recognizes that act as the source of the assignee's title, in like manner as it would if such title was derived from a contract or deed. (Cook v. Waters et al., 9 N. B. R. 155.) An attachment issued by a state court against a corporation more than four months before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy will not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Munson v. Railroad Co., 14 N. B. R. 173.) A sale fraudulent under the bankrupt law cannot be annulled by a state court on that ground; but when such is avoided by proceedings in a bankrupt court, it is the duty of a state court to carry out and enforce the decision. (Bromley v. Goodrich et al., 15 N. B. R. 289.) An action in a state supreme court by creditors alleging that while a debtor was insolvent he purchased with his own money certain realty, and praying that the debtor be declared to hold the property in trust, will be stayed by the bankruptcy court, when, before the suit was commenced, a voluntary petition was filed, and creditors proved their debts. (In re Meyers, 1 N. B. R. 162; 2 Ben. 424; Fed. Cas. 9518.) Where there is a co-assignee, and the assignee plaintiff in a suit has absconded, it is not proper to proceed further with the suit until proper proceedings are taken by the defendant, on notice to the co-assignee, to bring him in and compel him to elect whether he will or not be made a party plaintiff to the suit, and become responsible for his conduct (Fenton, Ass., v. Collerd, 11 N. B. R. 535; 8 Ben. 27; Fed. Cas. 4731); the decree of foreclosure and the sale in state court, made after the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced, is a bar to the right of the assignee to raise the question of usury. (Cutter, Ass., etc. v. Dingee, 14 N. B. R. 294; 8 Ben, 469; Fed. Cas. 3518.) In an action by the assignee in a state court he need