Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/336

 B23 FEDERAL REPÔBTEB. �property. Nor •would these respondents in such a suit be estopped to deny that the assignment was void under the bankrupt law. They might be estopped to deny that it was void under the law3 of New York, because by levying on the property as the property of the debtor they affirm the inva- lidity of the assignment; but that invalidity is not the same sought to be established under the bankrupt law. Nor, as it seems to me,, could the assignee in bankruptcy, having brought suit against the state assignee without joiniag these defendants and obtained à. decree avoiding the assignment, then maintain an action at law against these execution cr«d- itors to recover the money paid to them out of the proceeds of the assigned property, and put in evidence his decreô against the stàte assignee in proof of the invalidity of the assignment under the bankrupt law. They might well answer that that decree was not binding on them in respect to the part of the property received by them ; that the case of the complainant against them depending upon the question whether the assignment wàs in fact made under the circum- stances and with the intent denounced by the bankrupt law as making it voidable, that on that issue they had a right to a trial before they could be concluded by the decree. �It seems clear, therefore, that if the assignee in bankruptcy intends to bring suit against intervening execution creditors who bave received part of the proceeds of the assigned estate, he must, at any rate, make them parties defendant to the suit brought against the state assignee to set aside the assign- ment. Is there any principle of law or equity which will compel him to bring two suits against them, first joining them as defendants in the suit to set aside the assignment, so that the determination in that question may be binding upon them, and afterwards suing them in an action atlaw upon the basis of that determination to recover the money? I think not. On the contrary, the general rule is that where a court of equity aequires jurisdiction for one purpose, it bas the power to go on and administer complete relief. �General demurrers to the bill, for want of equity, were fîled by the execution creditors, which demurrers were ovenailed. ����