Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/332

 818 FSDBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �LiNDEB, Assignee, etc., ». Lewis and others. �{Vistriet Court, S. D. Nm York. August 16, 1879. �1. Equitt Pbactice — Finai/ Hbaking— Interlocutort Okdeks — Re- �vision. — At the final hearing of a cause ail the previous interlocutory orders in relation to the merits are open for revision and under tha control of the court. Towrniguet v. Perkins, 16 How. 82. �2. Assignee in Bankroptct— Suit to Set Asidb Assionment— Exe- �cution Obeditobs.— If an assignee in bankruptcy intends to bring suit against intervening execution creditors who have received part of the proceeds of an assigned estate, he must make them parties defendant to the suit brought against the assignee to set aside the assignment. �3. Samb— Execution Cbeditoks — Action at Law. — In such case the �assignee in bankruptcy is not compelled to bring a separate action at law to reoover such proceeds of the assigned estate. �4. Same— Validitt oï" Assignment. — In such suit the question of the �validity of the assignment can be raised and determined. �5. Bame — ExBctn'iON Creditoks— Dbmand. — Demand and refusai need �not be averred or proved, in order to recover in such suit. �6. Assignment — Validitt — Piling Bchbdules and Bond—Laws op �New Yoek. — The flling of schedules and bond are not essential to the validity of such assignment under the laws of New York. �7. BuiT to Bbt Asidb Assignment— Execution Cebditoks — Interbst. �In such suit interest should not be allowed against the execution creditors from the time of the levy, but only from the time suit was commenced against them. �Q. H. Yeaman, for complainant. �M. H. Regensberger ani R. D. Benedict, for defendants. �Choate, d. J. Upon the hearing of exceptions to the master's report and motion for a final decree the respondents, the sheriiï, and the judginent creditors upon -whose execu- tions the property included in the voluntary assignment from the bankrupt to the respondent Lewis was seized, object to the entering of any decree against them, and claim that in the former decision of the court, in accordanoe with which an interlocutory decree was entered against them for an account of that part of the assigned property which came into their hands, there was error; that no case for eq[uitable relief is ����