not be a release, and in such case he shall be exempt from such arrest when in attendance upon a court of bankruptcy or engaged in the performance of a duty imposed by this act.

b. The judge may, at any time after the filing of a petition by or against a person, and before the expiration of one month after the qualification of the trustee, upon satisfactory proof by the affidavits of at least two persons that such bankrupt is about to leave the district in which he resides or has his principal place of business to avoid examination, and that his departure will defeat the proceedings in bankruptcy, issue a warrant to the marshal, directing him to bring such bankrupt forthwith before the court for examination. If upon hearing the evidence of the parties it shall appear to the court or a judge thereof that the allegations are true and that it is necessary, he shall order such mar. shal to keep such bankrupt in custody not exceeding ten days, but not imprison him, until he shall be examined and released or give bail conditioned for his appearance for examination, from time to time, not exceeding in all ten days, as required by the court, and for his obedience to all lawful orders made in reference thereto.

The Act of 18671 contained a provision similar to clause 2. Rule XXVII. established by the Supreme Court under that act provided that a writ of habeas corpus might be issued by the district court in case any bankrupt were imprisoned, and if he were held on a claim provable in bankruptcy he would be released. It was held that the district court could not determine the question whether there was any foundation for the suit on which the debtor was arrested, but if it appeared on the

1 § 26, 14 Stats. 529, R. S. § 5107.

face of the papers that there was a claim which would not be released by the bankrupt's discharge he was to be sent back.1 An arrest before bankruptcy proceedings were begun would not be affected by them and the court had no power to release the prisoner,2 and such would be the decision under the present act, as the word "bankrupt" means a person involved in bankruptcy proceeding (§ 1, (4)), and Rule XXX. is in the same terms as former Rule XXVII. and omits all mention of persons imprisoned before the petition is filed.

The privilege from arrest while in attendance on the court exists independent of legislation.3

Rule XXX. provides also that when a creditor imprisons a debtor after his petition is filed the court may on application and notice to the creditor discharge the debtor if the debt is one provable in bankruptcy.

The rule relates in terms only to voluntary bankrupts but the court would have power under the act to take similar proceedings in involuntary cases.

The debtor may receive from the referee a protection against arrest at any time after the case has been sent to a referee. The protection from arrest will last until the determination of the question of the debtor's discharge.

Rule XXX. is open to the same objection that was made to former Rule XXVII. The Act of 18675 gave the bankrupt immunity from arrest on a claim which would be released by a discharge, while the rule extended this immunity to claims made provable by the act. It was held that so far as the rule applied to arrest on provable debts which were not released it was void. This decision is applicable to the present Rule XXX., which has the same scope.

One of the clauses of § 5024 of the Revised Statutes7 au

1 Re Devoe, 2 N. B. R. 27, Fed. Cas. No. 3843; Re Kimball, 2 N. B. R. 204, Fed. Cas. No. 7768.

2 Re Walker, 1 N. B. R. 318, Fed. Cas. No. 17,060; Hazelton v. Valentine, 2 N. B. R. 31, Fed. Cas. No. 6287.

3 Re Kimball, N. B. R. 193, Fed. Cas. No. 7767.

4 Rule XII. 1.

5

§ 26, 14 Stats. 529, R. S. 5107.

Re Glaser, 1 N. B. R. 336, Fed. Cas. No. 5474. See Re Seymour, 1 N. B. R. 29, Fed. Cas. No. 12,684.

7 Originally § 40 of Act of 1867, 14 Stats. 536.

thorized the debtor's arrest in a similar manner before the adjudication, but not after.1

The provision of paragraph b gives the court greater power, but the bankrupt can be held in custody only ten days. The warrant should give authority to the marshal only to bring the debtor before the court,' because the judge has power to keep the debtor for ten days only after the hearing if it appears that the facts alleged are true.

§ 473. Act of 1898. SEC. 10. EXTRADITION OF BANKRUPTS.-a. Whenever a warrant for the apprehension of a bankrupt shall have been issued, and he shall have been found within the jurisdiction of a court other than the one issuing the warrant, he may be extradited in the same manner in which persons under indictment are now extradited from one district within which a district court has jurisdiction to another.

The proceedings for removal of a person under indictment from one district to another are prescribed by § 1014 of the Revised Statutes, which provides for the arrest of a person who has committed any offence against the United States. The proceedings are to be in the form used in the State where the offender is arrested. The judge of the district court is to issue a warrant for the removal of the prisoner after his arrest to the district where the offence was committed. If the indictment is sufficient on its face, and no evidence is offered to contradict it, the order for removal will be made.2 But when the indictment does not set out an offence against the United States, or one committed in the jurisdiction of the court where the offender is to be tried, the warrant for removal will not be made.3

As to whether a warrant for the arrest of the offender may

1 Usher v. Pease, 116 Mass. 440, 12 Cas. No. 162; Re Clark, 2 Ben. 540, N. B. R. 305. Fed. Cas. No. 2797.

2 Re Alexander, 1 Lowell, 530, Fed.

3 Re Buell, 3 Dill. 116, Fed. Cas No. 2102.

be issued by the court of the district to which he is to be removed, see 2 Moore, Extradition, p. 855.

For the numerous decisions on the meaning of various parts of the statute, see Vols. I. and II. of Gould & Tucker's Notes to the Revised Statutes.

§ 474. Act of 1898. SEC. 11. SUITS BY AND AGAINST BANKRUPTS.-a. A suit which is founded upon a claim for which a discharge would be a release, and which is pending against a person at the time of the filing of a petition against him, shall be stayed until after an adjudication or the dismissal of the petition; if such person is adjudged a bankrupt, such action may be further stayed until twelve months after the date of such adjudication, or, if within that time such person applies for a discharge, then until the question of such discharge is determined.

b. The court may order the trustee to enter his appearance and defend any pending suit against the bankrupt.

c. A trustee may, with the approval of the court, be permitted to prosecute as trustee any suit commenced by the bankrupt prior to the adjudication, with like force and effect as though it had been commenced by him.

d. Suits shall not be brought by or against a trustee of a bankrupt estate subsequent to two years after the estate has been closed.

The right to enjoin proceedings in a state court does not exist independently of a bankrupt law. Section 5106 of the Revised Statutes provided that no creditor having a provable claim should prosecute a suit against the bankrupt to final judgment

1 R. S. § 720.

2 Formerly § 21 of the Act of 1867, 14 Stats. 526.

until the question of the debtor's discharge was determined. This differs in several important respects from the provision in the present act. Thus an action on a provable debt was stayed whether it would be affected by the bankrupt's discharge or not.1 These decisions are not in point now.

Suits against a voluntary bankrupt are not in terms affected, as the clause under consideration applies only to persons against whom a petition has been filed. But as by definition 1 of § 1 a "person against whom a petition has been filed" includes a voluntary bankrupt, it would seem that this clause related to such a person also. This conclusion is enforced by the consideration that a bankrupt law should be construed in a broad way as establishing a practical system. And the exact phraseology of the definition is used nowhere in the act, so it would appear that it was the intention of Congress to apply the definition to a case like this.

There is nothing in this section which would make it apply to a suit begun after bankruptcy proceedings were commenced, and the difference in phraseology between this act and the Revised Statutes is significant in this connection.

The former statute applied to suits "at law or in equity." The word "suit" here would seem to cover the same ground. Contempt proceedings in a state court have been stayed,3 and so of other proceedings under state laws.1

It was held under the last bankrupt law that a suit against a corporation would not be stayed, because corporations were not discharged under that act.5 But these cases have no authority now, because there is nothing in the present act excepting corporations from the provisions as to discharge. Under the present act suits against a bankrupt are to be

1 Re Rosenberg, 2 N. B. R. 236, Fed. Cas. No. 12,054; Re Migel, 2 N. B. R. 481, Fed. Cas. No. 9538; Re Duncan, 14 N. B. R. 18, Fed. Cas. No. 4131; Re Ghirardelli, 4 N. B. R. 164, Fed. Cas. No. 5376.

2 Re Locke, 2 N. B. R. 382, Fed. Cas. No. 8439; Re Muller, 3 N. B. R. 329, Fed. Cas. No. 9912; Re Silverman,

4 N. B. R. 522, Fed. Cas. No. 12,855; Re Eeles, 5 Law Rep. 273, Fed. Cas. No. 4302.

3 Re Summers, 1 N. B. N. 60.

4 Lear. West, 91 Fed. Rep. 237, 1 N. B. N. 79.

5 Allen v. Soldiers' Despatch Co., 4 N. B. R. 537 ; Meyer v. Aurora Ins. Co., 7 N. B. N. 191.