parties from interfering with the debtor's property. In re James Martin, 5 Law Rep. 158.

If the bankrupt sues on a demand which passed to his assignee, and recovers judgment, the district court may arrest the payment of the money to the bankrupt, and order it to be paid over to the assignee. Moore v. Jones, 23 Vt. 739.

If the assignee claims the benefit of a judgment recovered by the bankrupt in his own name, he must take it subject not only to such charges as are legally taxable and recoverable as costs, but also to all other reasonable charges and expenses incurred in obtaining the judgment. Ibid.

The attorney for the bankrupt can not be allowed for services rendered in opposition to a motion made by the assignee in a State court for leave to appear and prosecute the suit in his own name. Ibid.

A State court, in a collateral action, may inquire into the jurisdiction of the district court as a court of bankruptcy. Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 N. Y. 254.

A State court may inquire into the jurisdiction of the district court, and declare its decree void, where the decree was rendered without authority of law. Wells v. Brackett, 30 Me. 61.

The district court, although a court of limited jurisdiction, is not an inferior court in the technical sense of that term, and its jurisdiction need not appear on the face of the proceedings. Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 N. Y. 254; Rucknam v. Cowell, 1 N. Y. 505; Reed v. Vaughn, 10 Mo. 447; Hayes v. Ford, 15 B. R. 569. Vide Morse v. Presby, 25 N. H. 299.

An adjudication is in the nature of a decree in rem as respects the status of the debtor, and can not be impeached in a collateral action if the record shows that the court making it had jurisdiction over his person and the subject-matter. Michaels v. Post, 12 B. R. 152; s. c. 21 Wall. 398; Bissell v. Post, 4 Day, 79; Sloan v. Lewis, 12 B. R. 173; s. c. 22 Wall. 150. A decree adjudging a corporation bankrupt is in the nature of a decree in rem as respects the status of the corporation, and if the court rendering it has jurisdiction, can only be assailed by a direct proceeding in a competent court, unless it appears that the decree is void in form, or that due notice of the petition was never given. New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass and Copper Co., 10 B. R. 355; s. c. 13 B. R. 385; s. c. 64 Barb. 435; s. c. 53 N. Y. 123; s. c. 91 U. S. 656.

A creditor can not impeach an adjudication in a collateral action on the ground that it was procured by fraud. Michaels v. Post, 12 B. R. 152; s. c. 21 Wall. 398.

Although the record does not show affirmatively that the district court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the bankrupt, that fact will be presumed. Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 N. Y. 254; Wright v. Watkins, 2 Greene (Iowa), 547.

Where a court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a question either at law or in equity, it must of necessity have the power of determining in which form the remedy shall be administered; and an error of judgment on that point can not be urged as a defect of jurisdiction in a collateral action. Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 N. Y. 254.

Where an involuntary proceeding is dismissed, and then reinstated without further notice to or appearance by the debtor, the adjudication is void, and a payment to an assignee, under an order of the district court, will not protect the party making such payment. Gage v. Gates, 15 B. R. 145; s. c. 62 Mo. 412.

ACT OF 1898, CH. 4, § 19. Jury Trials. See post, p. 294.

ACTS OF 1867 and 1874, § 566. The trial of issues of fact in the district court, in all causes except in cases in equity and cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and except as otherwise provided in proceedings in bankruptcy, shall be by jury.

Statutes revised ch. 20, 5 Stat. 726.

*

*

Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat. 76; Feb. 26, 1845,

§ 648. The trial of issues of fact in the circuit courts shall be by jury, except in cases of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and except as otherwise provided in proceedings in bankruptcy.

* * *

Statute revised Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 12, 1 Stat. 79.

§ 711. The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States, in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several States. * * *

Sixth. Of all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy.

The jurisdiction thus given depends wholly upon the act, and is necessarily exclusive, because independently of it there is no jurisdiction in any tribunal over any such proceedings, and no original jurisdiction is given to any other. This includes all proceedings for adjudging any one a bankrupt, thereby vesting title to his property in an assignee appointed pursuant to the act. Cook v. Whipple, 9 B. R. 155; s. c. 55 N. Y. 150.

By the proceedings and adjudication, jurisdiction is obtained of the bankrupt and his creditors, and the court making the adjudication is the only one that can deal with the bankrupt and his creditors, and settle all conflicting claims, equities and controversies arising between them. All such matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court where the proceedings are pending. Goodall v. Tuttle, 7 B. R. 193; s. c. 3 Biss. 219.

'A State court, on the application of the debtor, may enjoin the petitioning creditor from prosecuting a fraudulent and oppressive petition in bankruptcy against him, especially if the latter invoked the jurisdiction of the State court to enforce his claim before filing the petition. Pusey v. Bradley, 1 N. Y. Supr. 661; s. c. 46 How. Pr. 255.

No State court can by any process prevent a party from applying to the district court for the benefit of the provisions of the bankruptcy law. Watson v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 11 B. R. 161; Fillingin v. Thornton, 12 B. R. 92; s. c. 49 Ga. 384.

The district court will not prevent a seizure of the bankrupt's property on execution, or a delivery to a receiver before an adjudication in a voluntary case, for it has no exclusive power over the property until there is an adjudication. In re W. C. H. Waddel, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 53.

The jurisdiction of a district court of the United States, sitting as a court of bankruptcy, is superior and exclusive in all matters arising under the statute. The estate surrendered is placed in the custody of the court so sitting in bankruptcy, and the officer appointed to manage it is accountable to the court appointing him, and to that court alone. No court of an independent State jurisdiction can withdraw the property surrendered, or determine in any degree the manner of its disposition. In re Barrow, re Loeb, Simon & Co., re Winter, 1 B. R. 481; s. c. 1 L. T. B. 63; in re Vogel, 2 B. R. 427; s. c. 3 B. R. 198; s. c. 7 Blatch. 18; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 154; in re People's Mail Steamship Co., 2 B. R. 553; s. c. 3 Ben. 226; in re Kerosene Oil Co., 2 B. R. 528; s. c. 3 Ben. 35; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 79; Brock v. Terrel, 2 B. R. 643; Pennington v. Sale & Phelan et al., 1 B. R. 572; Jones v. Leach et al., 1 B. R. 595; in re Wallace, 2 B. R. 134; s. c. 1 Deady, 433; Buckingham v. McLean, 3 McLean, 185; s. c. 13 How. 151; Watson v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 11 B. R. 161.

Any interference with the property, while so in the custody of the court, is liable to be punished as a contempt. In re Vogel, 2 B. R. 427; s. c. 3 B. R. 198; s. c. 7 Blatch. 18; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 154.

From the time of the filing of the bankrupt's petition, the property is in the custody of the bankruptcy court, and at least from the time of the appointment of the assignee, the possession of it by the bankrupt is, in law, the possession of it by the assignee. In re J. M. Rosenberg, 3 B. R. 130; 8. c. 3 Ben. 366.

The district court would fail in its duty if it were to suffer the possession of the assignee to be forcibly displaced by a third person, although using the form of the process of a State court, in a suit to which the assignee is not a party, and in which the title of the assignee is not in question, but where the property would be subjected to such a fate as a contest beween two strangers to the proceedings in bankruptcy might involve. Samson v. Blake, 6 B. R. 410; s. c. 9 Blatch. 379.

The district court has the power to protect the possession of the assignee against interference, except by a resort to a proper legal proceeding, to which he is a party; and if the property is taken from his possession without such proceeding, may compel its return. Ibid.

A party who holds a claim that is not provable need not apply to the district court for leave to issue an execution. Black v. McClelland, 12 B. R. 481; s. c. 7 C. L. N. 420.

A State court has no jurisdiction to direct a depositary of the bankrupt court to pay a judgment against the assignee out of the funds of the estate deposited with it. Havens v. Nat'l. City Bank, 13 B. R. 95; s. c. 6 N. Y. Supr. 346.

The appointment of the assignee in bankruptcy relates back, and gives to him title to all the estate, real and personal, legal and equitable rights, interests and things in action which belonged to the debtor on the presentation of the petition. From and after the filing of the petition, therefore, creditors can acquire no interest by receivership, or otherwise, in the property of the debtor which the decree in bankruptcy will not displace or annul. Buchanan v. Smith, 4 B. R. 397; s. c. 7 B. R. 513; s. c. 8 Blatch. 153; s. c. 16 Wall. 277; Stuart v. Hines, 6 B. R. 416; s. c. 33 Iowa, 60; s. c. 5 L. T. B. 46; Vidal v. Ocean Ins. Co., 5 Rob. (La.) 68; Pennington v. Sale & Phelan et al., 1 B. R. 572; Jones v. Leach et al., 1 B. R. 595; in re Geo. W. Anderson, 9 B. R. 360; McLean v. Rockey, 3 McLean, 235; Thames v. Miller, 2 Woods, 564.

The levy of an attachment after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy is absolutely void. Stuart v. Hines, 6 B. R. 416; s. c. 33 Iowa, 60; s. c. 5 L. T. B. 46; Weisenfeld v. Mispelhorn, 5 W. Va. 46; Oliver v. Smith, 5 Mass. 183; Whitney v. Lodge 1 W. N. 170.

The title of the assignee will prevail over an attachment issued after the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, but before the adjudication. Phillips v. Helmbold, 26 N. J. Eq. 202.

The issuing of an injunction out of the district court, restraining a purchaser and the sheriff from disposing of goods, does not confer such exclusive jurisdiction over the subject as to prevent the purchaser from instituting an action against the sheriff. Hathaway v. Brown, 18 Minn. 414. When money is raised upon an execution, and paid into court for distribution, a party who sets up a title adverse to the proceedings can not come in and claim any share. Thus, if the goods of A. are sold upon an execution against B., A. can not be heard to urge his rights to the proceeds, however clear and indisputable may be his title to the goods. An assignee of the debtor, by a transfer prior to the levy, is an adverse claimant. If a levy is made after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, the assignee can not claim the proceeds of the sale. His remedy is by an action against the sheriff's vendee or the sheriff himself. Bush's Appeal, 65 Penn. 363.

If the bankrupt is a tenant in possession of land, the landlord can not eject him by summary proceedings instituted in a State court under a statute relating to tenants holding over after the expiration of their terms. In re Enoch Steadman, 8 B. R. 319.

The omission of the bankrupt to apply for an injunction to prevent any interference with the property will not justify or excuse the parties who are guilty of such interference. Ibid.

When the assignee in bankruptcy finds property in the possession of the bankrupt, and takes it into his custody, he becomes possessed of it in the course of his official duties, and can not be deprived of it by a summary proceeding in a State court, under whose fi. fa. the sheriff had made a levy previously to the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy. The sheriff has his remedy by an action of trover, or he may institute the proper proceedings in the bankruptcy court, to which the assignee is amenable. Hill v. Fleming, 39 Ga. 662.

A creditor may proceed in a State court to reach property of the bankrupt which the assignee has abandoned as being a burden rather than a benefit. Rugely v. Robinson, 19 Ala. 404.

A bankrupt who has received a discharge is not entitled to file an objection to the ratification of a sheriff's sale made after the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, for he has no interest in the fund or in the land. All reasonable presumption is against the existence of any surplus from his estate after the payment of his debts. Laird v. Laird, Penn. L. J. 474.

When the assignee has lawfully sold the property, the district court is not authorized to interfere at the instance of the purchaser, to vindicate his title. If another sees fit to contest his title, the controversy, like others of a like nature, is to be determined by the State tribunals. Briggs v. Stephens, 7 Law Rep. 281.

Claims against the property of the bankrupt, so long as it remains in the possession of the bankruptcy court, can only be enforced in the district court sitting as a court of bankruptcy. In re People's Mail Steamship Co., 2 B. R. 553; s. c. 3 Ben. 226; Jones v. Leach et al., 1 B. R. 595; Davis, Assignee of Bittel et al., 2 B. R. 392; in re Kerosene Oil Co., 2 B. R. 528; s. c. 3 B. R. 125; s. c. 3 Ben. 35; s. c. 6 Blatch. 521; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 79; in re Snedaker, 3 B. R. 629.

If a party has a claim, lien, or interest in the property in the hands of an assignee in bankruptcy he should apply to the bankruptcy court for relief, and that court may grant the relief or allow a suit to be brought either in the district court or the State courts, to determine the same; but without such consent, parties have no right to sue, and are guilty of a contempt of the authority of the bankruptcy court if they do sue. The bankruptcy court will insist upon its right to administer and distribute the property. Parties should understand that they have no right to commence suits against an assignee to affect the property, for as he is accountable to the bankruptcy court for the property, it is the duty of the court to protect him in the possession. The Federal courts sedulously avoid all interference with property held by the State courts or their officers, and they, with equal solicitude and firmness, maintain their right to hold property which is in their possession or in the custody of their officers, against the process of any State court, and will not permit persons, through process issuing from State courts, to interfere with impunity with property so in the possession of the Federal courts or their officers. In re Cook & Gleason, 3 Biss. 116.

A mortgagee has no right to take possession of the mortgaged premises after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy. Hutchings v. Muzzy Iron Works, 8 B. R. 458; s. c. 6 C. L. N. 27.

A subsequent sale, whether under judgment or mortgage, without the consent of the bankruptcy court, is subject to be set aside by that court. Davis v. Anderson, 6 B. R. 145.

Costs incurred in the prosecution of a suit to enforce a lien commenced after the filing of the petition can not be allowed. The creditor who institutes such a suit must give it up before he can be paid the amount of his claim by the bankruptcy court. In re Cook & Gleason, 3 Biss. 116.