Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/134

 122 FEDEEAIi BEPOETEK. �of jurisdiction, because the jurisdictional facts do not appear on the face of the pleading to these petitions in bankruptcy. We have entire juriscliction of the subject-matter, and may acquire jurisdic- tion of the persons and the res under given conditions ; and it does seem that there should be a presumption in favor of the existence of the conditions and the jurisdiction, unless parties notified at once and in the beginning point out the defects or non-existence of the juris- dictional facts by motion or petition to vacate the adjudication for want of jurisdiction. If this be not the rule in such cases it is mani- fest not only that the discharge will fail, but the court being without jurisdiction of the original bankruptcy petition all that is done under it is void; the assignment is vacated; all titles to property sold under it become worthless, and the purchasers from the assignee under the decreesof the court must lose it. These consequences are inevitable. I do not, therefore, deem it important to inquire whether the original petition, on its face, gives jurisdiction or not, though I think it de- fectively states enough on which to predicate jurisdiction, or whether this petition to annul the discharge states enough to show a want ol jurisdiction; for, whether the original petition is defective or not, or whether the facts it states are untrue or not, I hold that this creditor having been notiued, or having appeared aud filed his proof of debt without in any f orm taking objection to the jurisdiction, has waived that objection, and he cannot now make it at all. There seems to be some doubt or confusion in reference to the place of filing a volun- tary copartnership petition where the partners reside in different dis- tricts ; and it is not clear what the facts about their doing business in this district were, but I think it is too late to go into that inquiry. Bump, (lOth Ed.) 68, 776. Whether the defects and irregularities he points out are such as would sustain an objection to granting a diseharge I do not determine, because if the diseharge be vacated it only reopens the case and leaves the parties and the record as it was at the time it was granted, and it can be then determined what would be proper to be done in the case. �The next question is whether the discharge can be set aside for want of notice to the creditors, or any oi them, of the separate appli- cation for discharge, as required by section 5109 of the Revised Stat- utes, already quoted. This is a different question from the other and depends on different principles. The court has jurisdiction to grant the discharge, but is it valid if this notice be not given, and may it be set aside by a proceeding like this ? �This application for a discharge is so far an independent proceed- ��� �