Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/583

 KIMBiaiLINQ V. HAETLT. 575 �Amory v. Lawrence, 3 Clifiord, 523, et seq.; McLean v. Rocky, 8 McLean, 235; Rugely e Harrison v. Bohinson, 19 Ala. 404, 417; Glening v. Langdon, 98 U. S. 20, 30; In re Lambert, 2 Bank. Eeg. 138. �The judgment crediter filed his bill, had a snbpœna served, and thereby acquired a lien before the commencement of pro- ceedings in bankruptcy. He did not prove his debt against the estate of the bankrupt, or in any manner voluntarily sub- mit himself to the jurisdiction of the bankrupt court, but was allowed to proceed to enforce his lien -without objection from that court or the assignee. In this state of the case the Btate court had a right and it "was its duty to proceed with the cause; its jurisdiction was complete, and its decree and the title acquired under it are as valid and effectuai as if the bankruptcy of the defendant had not intervened. Sedgwich v. Mench, 6 Blatch. 156; Clark v. Rist, 3 McLean, 494; In re Davis, 1 Sawyer, 260; Goddard v. Weaver, 6 Bank, Eeg. 440 ; Second Nat. Bk. v. Nat. St. Bk. 10 Bush. 367; S. C. 11 Bank. Eeg. 49; Davis t. Railroad Co. 1 Wood, 661; Norton' s Assignee v. Boyd, 3 How. 426; Townsend v. Leonard, 3 Dill. 370; Johnson v. Bishop, 1 Wood, C. C. E. 374; Beed v. Bullington, 49 Miss. 223; S. C. 11 Bank. Eeg. 408; Waller's Assignee v. Best, S How. 111. �Cases holding a contrary view have been cited in the argu- ment ; but ail doubts and conflict of authority upon the ques- tion have been removed by the authoritative judgments of the supreme court of the United States. Marshall v. Knox, 16 Wall. 551; Doe v. Childress, 21 Wall. 642; Eyster v. Gaf, 91 U. S. 521. �In Dorr v. Childress the facts were that the land, was at- tached in a suit in the state court in April, 1867, and that the defendant was declared a bankrupt in February, 1868, four months before a decree was obtained in the suit, and seven months before the sale took place under the decree, and the court said: "The Tennesse court of chancery having jurisdiction of the subject of the proceeding in the attach- ment suits, no defence being interposed by the assignee in the Btate court, and no means having been taken to arrest theii ��� �