were restrained by the bankrupt court. The court held the claim must be disallowed; that until the appointment of a receiver his right is not a lien within the meaning of the bankrupt law. (In re Wheeler et al., 18 N. B. R. 385; 26 Pittsb. Leg. J. 84; Fed. Cas. 17490.) The seizure of goods under a warrant of seizure by the United States marshal, where an adjudication of bankruptcy has been had upon a creditor's petition, will divest the lien of a prior unlevied execution (In re Tills and May, 11 N. B. R. 214; Fed. Cas. 14052); but if there has been a recovery of judgment before bankruptcy, the sheriff may go on and sell, but the bankrupt court has the right to cause the sale to be made under its supervision and control. (Allen & Co. v. Montgomery et al., 10 N. B. R. 503.)

Effect of notice on creditor's lien.- Where a creditor, having reasonable cause to believe debtors insolvent, seizes their property on execution, the assignee may recover the property or its value, the creditor being allowed expenses of sale, but not sheriff's fees. (Sedgwick, Ass., v. Millward, 5 N. B. R. 347; Fed. Cas. 12618.) A party who has sufficient notice to put him upon inquiry is chargeable with knowledge of all facts which by a proper inquiry he might have ascertained. (Brooke, Ass., v. McCraken, 10 N. B. R. 461; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 10; Fed. Cas. 1932.) But the fact that an affidavit was filed and execution issued and levied on the same day that proceedings in bankruptcy were begun does not show collusion. (Witt, Ass., v. Hereth, 13 N. B. R. 106; 6 Biss. 474; 8 Chi. Leg. News, 41; 1 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 436; Fed. Cas. 17921.) The words "in contemplation of bankruptcy" do not require evidence of actual intent to file a petition in bankruptcy; it is sufficient if the bankrupt knew at the time that he would be unable to pay his debts, and would be compelled to cease business. (In re Lawson, 2 N. B. R. 125; Fed. Cas. 8151.)

Almost the entire capital of a debtor was money borrowed from his brother, who brought suit for an amount that would necessarily absorb the whole of it. Circumstantial evidence showed that the suit, apparently antagonistic, was collusive, the debtor being at the time insolvent, and the brother having reasonable cause to believe him so, the lien thus created was held void. (In re Baker, 14 N. B. R. 433; 14 Alb. Law J. 294; Fed. Cas. 763.) Very slight circumstances indicating the existence of an affirmative desire, on a bankrupt's part, to give a preference, or to defeat the operation of the act, may, by giving color to the whole transaction, make void a lien against his property. (Wilson v. City Bank of St. Paul, 9 N. B. R. 97; 17 Wall. 473.)

Liens cannot be acquired after petition filed. The bankrupt law, in providing for the dissolution of liens, only operates on liens pending at the time bankruptcy proceedings are commenced (Shelley et al. v. Elliston, Ass., 18 N. B. R. 375; 28 Pittsb. Leg. J. 92; Fed. Cas. 12750); but after filing of petition, creditor cannot acquire a lien on property of bankrupt by attachment, judgment and levy, and this is not affected by pendency of composition proceedings. (In re Tifft, 19 N. B. R. 201; Fed

Cas. 14034.) A sale of the debtor's land on execution and levy after the beginning of bankruptcy proceedings will not pass title against the assignee, although the judgment lien was created prior to the proceedings (Davis v. Anderson, 6 N. B. R. 146; Fed. Cas. 3623); and after the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, no valid lien can be acquired upon the property of the bankrupt by proceedings in the state court; and an assignee is not bound to go into a state court to defend such a suit, the action being a nullity as to him. (Stuart v. Hines, 6 N. B. R. 416; Winters et al. v. Claitor et al., 18 N. B. R. 533.) No lien can be acquired or enforced by such proceedings commenced after petition in bankruptcy is filed, though in cases where jurisdiction has been previously acquired by state courts of a suit brought in good faith to enforce a valid lien upon property, such jurisdiction will not be divested (In re Wynne, 4 N. B. R. 5; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 116; Fed. Cas. 18117); and the fact that creditors levied on property of the alleged bankrupt after the filing of the petition gives them no rights as against petitioning creditors different from that of creditors at large. (In re Lawrence et al., 18 N. B. R. 516; 26 Pittsb. Leg. J. 143; Fed. Cas. 8133.) Property of a bankrupt which he is entitled under a state law to hold exempt from levy and sale cannot be sold after he has filed his petition in bankruptcy to satisfy a prior levy thereon (In re Griffin, 2 N. B. R. 85; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 23; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 103; Fed. Cas. 5813); but where, before a petition was filed in bankruptcy, the bankrupt was indebted for material furnished to be used in the construction of a building, and after filing petition, but within three months after completion of building, a lien was filed, the lien was held valid. (In re Coulter, 5 N. B. R. 64; 2 Sawy. 42; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 257; 2 Chi. Leg. News, 377; 4 Amer. Law T. 131; Fed. Cas. 3276.)

If the landlord has no lien on the bankrupt tenant's goods as against the bankrupt on the day the petition in bankruptcy is filed, he has none subsequently as against the assignee (In re Butler, 6 N. B. R. 501; 19 Pittsb. Leg. J. 146; 3 Pittsb. Rep. 369; Fed. Cas. 2236); and the levying of a distress warrant after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, but before the appointment of the assignee, does not give the landlord a lien on the property levied upon as against the assignee. (Morgan v. Campbell, Ass., 11 N. B. R. 529. Contra, In re Appold, 1 N. B. R. 178; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 624; 6 Phila. 469; 25 Leg. Int. 180; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 83; Fed. Cas. 499.)

When liens obtained through judicial proceedings are valid.— When not absolutely prohibited by the Bankrupt Act, liens and preferences are entitled to the same protection from the bankrupt courts as other legal rights. (Barron et al. v. Morris, Ass., 14 N. B. R. 371; Fed. Cas. 1055.) In general it was held under the act of 1867 that the law did not affect the lien of a judgment (Haworth v. Travis et al., 13 N. B. R. 145; In re Gold Mountain Mining Co., 15 N. B. R. 545; 3 Sawy. 601;

Fed. Cas. 5515; In re Wimm, 1 N. B. R. 131; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 17; Fed. Cas. 17876); and the filing of a petition in bankruptcy subsequent to delivery of an execution, but before levy was made, did not divest the creditor's lien on the debtor's property, arising out of the judgment and execution. (Bartlett, Ass., v. Russell, 16 N. B. R. 211; 4 Dill 267; 9 Chi. Leg. News, 377; 6 Amer. Law Rec. 13; 4 Law & Eq. Rep. 197; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 206; Fed. Cas. 1080.) Whatever is declared and treated as a valid levy and a valid and subsisting lien by the state laws and courts will be so treated by the bankruptcy court. (Armstrong, Ass., v. Rickey Bros., 2 N. B. R. 150; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 145; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 65; Fed. Cas. 546.) A petition in bankruptcy does not render void an honest execution, levied upon the debtor's property before the filing of his petition. The court will interfere with the exercise of the right of the sheriff only where its exercise would materially affect the interest of the general creditors (Goddard v. Weaver, 6 N. B. R. 440; 1 Woods, 257; Fed. Cas. 5495); and it was held under the act of 1867 that an execution issued against the property of a debtor, when the creditor had not reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent, was valid (In re Black and Secor, 2 N. B. R. 65; Fed. Cas, 1458); and that judgments should not be set aside as fraudulent and void merely because the plaintiff had exacted a high rate of interest, especially when at the time of entering the judgments valuable collateral securities were surrendered to debtor by plaintiff for a large part of said judgments. (Shaffer v. Fritchery & Thomas, 4 N. B. R. 179; Fed. Cas. 12697.) It was also held that a judgment note given for a valuable consideration more than four months before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, on which judgment was entered and execution issued within four months of the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, was valid (Sleek et al. v. Turner, Ass., 10 N. B. R. 580; Piper v. Baldy, 10 N. B. R. 517; 10 Phila. 247; 31 Leg. Int. 316; 22 Pittsb. Leg. J. 29; Fed. Cas. 11179); and judgment obtained against an insolvent debtor without fraud or collusion would be as conclusive evidence of the claim and its amount as if given against a solvent debtor (Catlin v. Hoffman, 9 N. B. R. 342; 2 Sawy. 486; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 159; Fed. Cas. 2521); also where a creditor advanced money to pay a valid execution and took a judgment for his own claim and the money so advanced, an execution on such judgment would be void as to the old claim but good as to the advance. (Lothrop v. Drake et al., 13 N. B. R. 472; 91 U. S. 516.) An officer is bound by his return, and where such return shows an attachment it shows also a lien upon the property attached; and where such attachment was made more than four months prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the specific property returned upon the writ. (Bowman v. Harding, 4 N. B. R. 5.) It was also held that a passive non-resistance on the part of an insolvent debtor, to a suit against him, and the creditor's knowledge of such in

solvent condition, would not make void a judgment and levy upon the former's property, nor violate the act; nor would such lien be displaced by subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, though commenced within four months after levy, or rendition of the judgment. (Wilson v. City Bank of St. Paul, 9 N. B. R. 97; 17 Wall. 472.)

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 motion, 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. It was held that the Bankrupt Act did not divest the lien. (Blum, Executor, v. Ellis, 13 N. B. R. 345.)

It was held under the former act that a purchaser at sheriff's sale, after proceedings commenced in bankruptcy, where the levy was made prior thereto, would acquire a good title notwithstanding the judgments under which the sale took place were afterwards declared void as in fraud of the act. (Zahn v. Fry et al., 9 N. B. R. 546; 10 Phila. 243; 31 Leg. Int. 197; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 155; Fed. Cas. 18198.) The judgment of a court setting apart property as a homestead exemption creates a lien on the property so allotted, and the judgment so rendered remains intact, though the fruits thereof may not be reaped by the parties to be benefited until an appellate court shall have determined its validity. (In re Moseley, Wells & Co., 8 N. B. R. 208; Fed. Cas. 9868.) Where action is brought to reach choses in action, or property not subject to sale on execution, the weight of authority holds that a lien is acquired by the mere commencement of the action (Johnson, Ass., v. Rogers et al., 15 N. B. R. 1; 5 Amer. Law Rec. 536; 14 Alb. Law J. 427; Fed. Cas. 7408); and the mere commencement of an action in the nature of a creditor's bill gives to the creditor an equitable lien upon the property and things in action of the debtor, whether in his hands or in the hands of a fraudulent transferee. (Stewart v. Isidor et al., 1 N. B. R. 129.)

Valid attachment liens.- It has been held that an attachment upon mesne process is 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); and an attachment by trustee process creates a lien on funds in the hands of a trustee, after service on him and without notice to the principal debtor, which will be saved when made the prescribed length of time before commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. (In re Peck, 16 N. B. R. 43; 9 Ben. 169; Fed. Cas. 10886.) Where petitioners instituted an attachment suit against bankrupts, attached goods subject to prior attachments, obtained judgment, execution issued, and levy was made subject to prior attachments, it was held that they had acquired a lien on the goods of the bankrupt, giving priority, and not affected by

the dissolution of the attachments (In re Steele et al., 16 N. 3. R. 105; 7 Biss. 504; Fed. Cas. 13345); and where a sheriff had custody of the goods of the bankrupt by virtue of an attachment, and other creditors obtained judgment and issued execution, the subsequent executions created a lien on all the goods in the sheriff's hands not covered by the first attachment. (In re Nelson, 16 N. B. R. 312; 9 Ben. 238; Fed. Cas. 10100.)

One A. began an action by attachment against his debtor, and immediately a petition in bankruptcy was filed by other creditors. Debtor applied for a composition. A. obtained judgment. Composition was effected and approved by the court. A. had notice of the proceedings, but refused to accept payment under the composition. His attachment was not dissolved by the composition, there having been no adjudication. (In re Shields, 15 N. B. R. 532; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 190; 4 Dill. 588; 4 Cent. Law J. 557; Fed. Cas. 12784.) A bankrupt defendant may file a bond to dissolve an attachment, although it was issued more than four months before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, and have the case continued to await his discharge (Braley v. Boomer et al., 12 N. B. R. 303); but where a defendant, after receiving his discharge in bankruptcy, filed a bond to dissolve an attachment existing upon his property more than four months prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings, it was held that the bond was filed too late, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff. (Johnson v. Collins, 12 N. B. R. 70.) Where the attachment is a security and the bankrupt is a mere accommodation acceptor, the creditor has a right to proceed against the bankrupt for his debt in bankruptcy, and also against the other parties to the bill under his attachment, until he has received the full amount of his debt, for it is a security obtained by the creditor against other parties to the bill by a proceeding in invitum. (In re Oram, 1 N. B. R. 133; 1 Hask. 89; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 65; Fed. Cas. 3343.)

Enforcement of valid liens.- Where a judgment creditor has made a levy upon the property of the bankrupt before filing of the petition, and after commencement of proceedings procures the sheriff to sell the property upon his execution, the court may set aside the sale or confirm it and permit the creditor to retain the proceeds, where the creditor acted under a misapprehension of his duty and the property brought its full value. (In re Hufnagel, 12 N. B. R. 554; Fed. Cas. 6837.) A judgment creditor may enforce his claim against property sold by the bankrupt before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, although his attorney was allowed a compensation for bringing assets into the bankrupt court (Phillips v. Bowdoin, 14 N. B. R. 43); and if he levies upon personalty and subsequently abandons his levy by permitting the property to go back into the hands of the defendant, it was held that he might enforce his lien against land sold by the bankrupt before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, and need not follow the personalty into the hands of the assignee. (Winship v. Phillips, 14 N. B. R. 50.)