Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/579

 KIMBEEUNG ». HA.ETLY. 571 �more reasonable not to pretend that there is a corporation, in order to deny that there is one. �The motion to etrike out the pleas, and for judgment by default, is denied. ���KiMBEELiNG V. Haetly and another. {Circuit Court, E. B. Kamat. , 1880.) �Kqttitable LrEN— Fhaudtilbnt Cohtetance bt Judoment Debtor — BiLi, PiLBDBT Judgment Crbditûr. — Judgment, execution, anda return of nulla bona place the judgment crediter in a position to assail convey- ances made by the judgment debtor to defraud his cveditors, and the filing of a bill for that purpose, and the service of process in the action, create a lien in equity upon the lands described in the bill, and entitle the plaintifE to priority over other creditors. �Same— BANKnuPTCT. — The lien thuscreated is not displaced by the subse- quent bankruptcy of the judgment debtor, but is protected by the bank- rupt act. �Assignee m BANKRtnPTCT — SEiECTroN OB' Bankrtjpt's Propbrtt. — Assignees in bankruptcy are not bound to take ail the property of the bankrijpt, but may reject such as may be rather a burdon than a benefit to the estate. �BANKRUPTcy — .ItjRiBDiCTioN OF Statb COURT IN SUIT Pbnding. — Where an action is pending in a state court of competent jurisdiction to enforce a specifie lien on property of the debtor, the subsequent bankruptcy of the debtor does not divest the atate court of its jurisdiction to proceed to a final decree in the cause and execute the same. The assignee in bank- ruptcy may intervene in such action, but the jurisdiction of the state court and the validity of its decree is not alïected by his failure to do so. �Assignee in Bankruptct — Assignmbnt Pbndbntb Lite — Subsequent Prockbdings. — The rule that one who purchases pendente Ute is bound by the subsequent proceedings, is applicable to an assignee in bank- ruptcy, and to the transfer made by a bankruptcy proceeding. �On the 8th day of February, 1875, the defendant John Hartly, recovered judgment in the circuit court of White county, Arkansas, against Thomas J. Oliphant for the sum of $280.27, upon which judgment execution was issued and leturued nulla hona. November 22, 1875, the judgment ered- itor, Hartly, filed his bill on the equity side of the White oounty circuit court, alleging the above facts, and further al- leging that the judgment defendant, Oliphant, was the owner ��� �