to have been fraudulently transferred by him and concealed, and that such an injunction should not be dissolved except upon proof that such action was not in fraud of creditors. In re Abbott, 1 Hask, 250; 1 Fed. Cas. 15.

Where creditors of the bankrupt, prior to proceedings in bankruptcy, filed a bill in equity for an injunction forbidding him to dispose of certain goods, it was held that the bill was nothing more than a petition, application, or other proceeding under the Act. In re Fendley, 10 N. B. R. 250; 8 Fed. Cas. 1137.

Under section 5063, R. S., it was held that the court of bankruptcy had power to determine the question of title to property claimed by him and others on a petition filed by him, where all the parties interested appeared and asked for a determination. Adams v. Collier, 122 U. S. 82.

In involuntary proceedings, the court granted an injunction forbidding the debtor to collect accounts or dispose of their property, but refused to extend it to parties who had not been served with notice of the application. In re Calendar, 5 Law Rep. 129; 4 Fed. Cas. 1045.

A petition in involuntary bankruptcy was filed February 5th, and on the same day, an injunction was issued forbidding the bankrupts and one D. from interfering with the property of the debtors, etc., "until the further order of the court." The injunction was served on D. February 14th. On the 19th, the debtors were adjudged bankrupts. D. had commenced a foreclosure suit against one of the bankrupts before the filing of the petition, and in that suit a decree was entered on the 12th of February, and on the 8th of March, he caused the property to be sold. The court decided that D. had not been guilty of contempt, and that the injunction having been issued under section 5024, R. S., did not operate after the adjudication, notwithstanding its language. In re Irving et al., 8 Ben. 463; 8 Fed. Cas. 108.

[For an important opinion, affirming the authority of the district court under the Act of 1898 to grant an injunction against the sale of property under process of a State court until a petition in bankruptcy can be filed against the debtor, see notes to section 71.]

Jurisdiction Without the District.

In the case cited, Judge Dillon considered, without deciding, the question whether process in bankruptcy can be served on parties interested outside of the district in which the proceedings are pending. Markson v. Heaney, 1 Dill. 497; 16 Fed. Cas. 769.

A subpoena in a suit in equity brought by an assignee is an original process within the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act, and there is no express authority in the Bankrupt Act of 1867, for the service of such a subpoena outside of the district where the suit is brought. Jobbins v. Montague et al., 5 Ben. 422; 13 Fed. Cas. 644.

A register in Vermont ordered a bankrupt to produce certain books and papers, which order was disobeyed, and the facts were certified to the district court where an order was made adjudging the bankrupt guilty of contempt and directing him to deliver the books and papers or be committed to jail in default. The bankrupt was arrested in New Hampshire and committed to jail in Vermont. It was held that the order of the district court was proper and valid; but that the arrest in New Hamp

shire was illegal and the imprisonment in Vermont in pursuance of such arrest was also illegal. In re Allen, 13 Blatchf. 271; 1 Fed. Cas. 436.

In proceedings pending in New York an order was made upon a party to show cause why certain transfers should not be set aside. The order was served in Illinois. The party thus served appeared by attorney. Later, the attorney asked that his appearance be withdrawn on the ground that it had been made by mistake. The court denied the application, and held that it had jurisdiction over the party in Illinois to make the order prayed for. In re Ulrich et al., 3 Ben. 355; 24 Fed. Cas. 510.

An order was made requiring the bankrupt to appear before the register at his office in St. Paul. The order was served on the bankrupt in Chicago. A motion was made for a warrant of arrest to bring him before the court and answer for a contempt in disobeying the order. The court held that, except in case of personal service of the order within its jurisdiction, it had no power to institute proceedings for contempt. The court intimated, however, that as it was a case of voluntary bankruptcy, he would refuse to grant a discharge to the bankrupt; also that if it was desired he would designate a register in Chicago before whom the examination could be had. In re Hodges, 11 N. B. R. 369; 12 Fed. Cas. 281.

While proceedings in bankruptcy were proceeding in Louisiana, a suit was commenced against the bankrupts in New York, and the bankrupts applied in the district court of the latter state for an injunction staying proceedings in that state. It was held that no court of bankruptcy but that in which the proceedings were pending could grant such an order. In re Richardson et al., 2 Ben. 517; 20 Fed. Cas. 696.

Where proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced in one state and subsequently in another, the court that first acquired jurisdiction by the filing of the petition was held to have the right to proceed to a final determination. In re Brown, 19 N. B. R. 270; 4 Fed. Cas. 336.

"Every district court of the United States has jurisdiction and authority to make all lawful orders and decrees in bankruptcy, although the original petition in bankruptcy was filed in another district, provided that the relief asked is such as cannot be given by the district court where the petition was originally filed, because the persons or property sought to be affected by the order or decree are beyond the reach of its process, and where they are within the reach of the process of the district court whose aid is thus invoked." McGehee et al. v. Hentz et al., 16 Fed. Cas. 103.

Judge Nelson, of the district court of Minnesota, decided that an assignee in bankruptcy cannot commence an action for the recovery of assets in a United States district court other than that in which the bankruptcy proceedings are pending. Lamb v. Damron, 7 N. B. R. 509; 14 Fed. Cas. 994.

It is not contempt of the court of bankruptcy for adverse claimants of property situated in other districts to notify the custodians not to deliver the same to the assignee. In re Litchfield, 13 Fed. Rep. 863.

"Where the necessary parties are before a court of equity, it is immaterial that the res of the controversy, whether it be real or personal

property, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal. It has the power to compel the defendant to do all things necessary according to the lex loci rei sitae which he could do voluntarily to give full effect to the decree against him." Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 298.

Less than four months before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy in Louisiana, certain creditors in New York brought an action against the bankrupts, and securing service by publication, attached money due the bankrupts from parties in the latter state. In due course, judgment was entered in their favor. The proceedings in bankruptcy in Louisiana resulted in a composition by the terms of which the bankrupts were restored to the possession of their property, and authorized to collect debts for the benefit of the creditors. Thereupon, they commenced a suit in the district court of New York to restrain the attaching creditors there from proceeding under their judgment. The court held that as no assignee had been appointed the suit could not be maintained, and that while the attaching creditors were bound by the composition as to claims against the bankrupts in personam, their rights in rem against the property attached were not impaired. McGehee et al. v. Hentz et al., 16 Fed. Cas. 103.

Courts of Bankruptcy and State Courts.

A court of bankruptcy will respect the construction of a state law placed upon it by the courts of that state, but decisions of the supreme court of the United States control as to questions of general jurisprudence. Crooks v. Stuart et al., 7 Fed. Rep. 800.

The supreme court held that the jurisdiction conferred on federal courts in suits by the assignee under the Act of 1867 was concurrent with that of state courts in suits of which they had full cognizance. Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521.

A state court is not divested of its jurisdiction over an action to enforce a specific lien on property of the debtor by the subsequent commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy. Kimberling v. Hartly et al., 1 Fed. Rep. 571.

The adjudication of a state court between rival claimants to a certain fund will be respected, notwithstanding it involves a decision affecting the legal rights of the parties under the Bankruptcy Act. Van Kleeck v. Miller et al., 19 N. B. R. 484; 28 Fed. Cas. 1025.

The enforcement of a judgment in an action in a state court, commenced after the commencement of proceedings, may be restrained by the district court of a district other than that in which the bankruptcy proceedings were pending. In re Tifft, 19 N. B. R. 201; 23 Fed. Cas. 1213. A decree by a United States court directed a voluntary assignee to turn over the property of the bankrupt, except certain moneys which he claimed to have disbursed. Held, that a state court could entertain jurisdiction of a suit to compel the assignee in bankruptcy to account for the excepted fund. Neill v. Jackson et al., 8 Fed. Rep. 144.

Referring to the Act of 1841, the supreme court said that its purpose was to secure a prompt and effectual administration of the estate of the bankrupts by the courts of the United States without the assistance of the courts of the states. Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292; Morton v. Boyd, id. 426.

A state court had jurisdiction of an action by an assignee in bankruptcy to vacate conveyances made by the bankrupt before the commencement of the proceedings as fraudulent against creditors. McKenna v. Simpson, 129 U. S. 506.

A mortgage may be foreclosed in a state court notwithstanding the equity of redemption has been conveyed by the assignee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, and the state court may also determine whether the mortgagee's claim was against the land or the fund in the assignee's hands. Adams v. Crittenden, 133 U. S. 296.

The court of bankruptcy will stay an action in a state court to recover a provable debt until the question of discharge is determined, and that without respect to whether the debt would or would not be released by the discharge. In re Rosenberg, 3 Ben. 14; 20 Fed. Cas. 1194.

Proceedings were commenced in a state court by one of two partners to terminate the partnership and for an account, and a receiver was appointed. Subsequently, the other partner filed a petition in bankruptcy, claiming that the partnership was insolvent and asking, that it be declared bankrupt. Held, that the bankrupt court had jurisdiction notwithstanding the proceedings in the state court. In re Noonan, 5 Chi. Leg. News, 557; 18 Fed. Cas. 298.

Held, that the district court as a court of bankruptcy has jurisdiction over incumbrances on the property of the bankrupt, and authority to determine their validity, extent and priority. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the district court will proceed by injunction upon the parties, and not against the state courts themselves. Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292.

A state court which has obtained jurisdiction of property by execution will not be restrained by the United States court from selling the same, but this rule does not apply to proceedings against bankrupts. Ruddells v. Simonton, 3 Biss. 322; 20 Fed. Cas. 1325.

Where a sheriff seized property under an execution on a judgment obtained before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the district court will not order such property to be taken out of his hands until the writ is set aside for cause shown, and upon proper proceedings. In re Shuey, 9 N. B. R. 526; 22 Fed. Cas. 45.

Where a bankrupt is arrested on a capias ad satisfaciendum from a state court, application for discharge from arrest should be made in the first instance to the state court; this to avoid possible conflict of jurisdiction. In re O'Mara, 4 Biss. 506; 18 Fed. Cas. 690.

In March, a debtor was lodged in jail on a judgment for a tort. In July, he filed his petition in bankruptcy, and on the January following,

he received his discharge. Judge Drummond held that he must be released from custody. In re Simpson, 2 N. B. R. 47; 22 Fed. Cas. 170.

After proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced, a creditor's suit in the state court was brought, the bankrupt, his assignee, and his wife being made parties. The suit was settled by the wife signing, under moral duress, and pressure, an agreement to relinquish three-fourths of her interest in lands inherited from her father; the agreement not being recorded as deeds were required to be, but being ratified by the state court. It was held that the proceeding in the state court was coram non judice, and that the bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction in the premises, and that the right of the wife who had a “specific claim was not affected by the state court proceeding. In re Anderson, 23 Fed. Rep. 482.

A. was sued in a state court and his account in a bank attached. He released the money by giving a bond, and then delivered the amount to a third person to secure his sureties. More than a year afterward, proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced against him. It was held that the assignee could not have an injunction against further proceedings in the state court, and could not take possession of the money as assets of the estate. In re Aubrey, 17 N. B. R. 287; 1 Fed. Cas. 315.

It was held under the Act of 1867 that only the circuit or district court of the district in which the bankruptcy proceedings were pending could enjoin the prosecution of a suit in a state court of another state to foreclose a mortgage on the bankrupt's property, commenced after the filing of the petition. Markson et al. v. Heaney, 1 Dill. 497; 16 Fed. Cas. 769.

The bankrupt court has jurisdiction over the property of a bankrupt, although proceedings have been instituted in a state court for the appointment of a receiver of the bankrupt's property, if the property has not been vested by law in such receiver. In re Nolan, 8 Ben. 559; 18 Fed. Cas. 296.

Paramount power of congress to establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States is expressly given by the Constitution, and when congress has exercised this power, state legislation and the jurisdiction and action of the state courts must yield to the paramount authority of the national government. It was held in this case that although proceedings under the state insolvent laws had been instituted, and receivers had taken charge of the property of the alleged bankrupt before bankruptcy proceedings were instituted, superior jurisdiction existed in the bankruptcy court to administer the estate. In re Safe Deposit Inst., 7 N. B. R. 392; 21 Fed. Cas. 139 (1872).

The bankrupt had given an order to certain creditors on a general fund in the hands of state officers. The latter had refused to accept it. The court of bankruptcy restrained the holders of the order from prosecuting a bill in equity against the officers in a state court, and further held that the bankrupt himself, before proceedings, and the assignee. after his appointment, is a necessary party to such a suit. Walker v. Seigel et al., 12 N. B. R. 394; 29 Fed. Cas. 49.