Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/117

 OLNEY V. TANNER. 105 �territorial power of officiai action; none which the court appointing him can confer with authorityto go into a foreign jurisdiction to talie posession of the debtor's property; none which can give him, upon tiie principle of comity, a privilege to sue in a foreign court or another jurisdietion, as the judgment creditor himself might have done, where his debtor may be amenable to the tribunal which the creditor may seek, * * * If he seeks to be recognized in another jurisdiction, it is to take the fund there eut of it without such court having any control of his subsequent action in respect to it, and with- out his having even offlcial power to give security to the court, the aid of which he seeks for his faithful conduct and offlcial accountability." Pages 335-339. �Towardsthe close of the opinion it is intimated that if the receiver's title had rested, net merely upon the law or practice of the local courts in the collection of debts, but upon an actual assignaient of the claim by the debtor himself, prior to the bankruptcy, by some instrument universally recognized as passing a title to property, the decision might then have been different. Graydon v. Chureh, 7 Mich. 86. This distinction would not benefit the complainant in this case, as no such assignment bas ever been made to him. The plaintif here bas no right or title of his own ; he is a mere officer of another court, seekirig, through a judgment to be obtained in this, an independent tribunal, to enforce and make available certain proceedings in invitum against the judgment debtor in another jurisdiction, for the exclusive benefit of a single creditor. For many purposes the courts of the states and those of the United States are treated as foreign to each other, al- though sitting within the same territorial limits. Walsk v. Durkin, 12 Johns. 99; Baldwin v. Haie, 17 Johns. 272; Tarbell v. Griggs, 3 Paige, 209; White v. Whiteman, 1 Curt. 494; Stanton v. Emhury, 93 U. S. 548, 554; Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed. Eep. 520. In Pennoijer V. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732, the court say : "While they are not foreign tribunals in their relations to the state courts, they are tribunals of different sovereignty exercising a distinct and independent jurisdic- tion." �The United States district court of this district, sitting in bank- ruptcy, is charged with the protection of the interests of creditors of the bankrupt throughout the whole country. Its discharge of the bankrupt here is operative in all the states ; and, as the interests which the court is charged with protecting are not local, but national, there would seem to be no good reason why a United States court in bank- ruptcy, sitting in this state, should be bound to aid an officer of a state court in seeuring a preference over other creditors, any more than if the bankruptcy proceedings happened to be in a similar court ��� �