Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/817

 ADAMS V. TEBRBIiL. 603 �ings will lie. But the plaintiffs insist not only on the want of jurisdiction of the bankrupt court over the subject-matter, but also its want of jurisdiction over the person. It is clear, if what bas already been said is true, that the bankrupt court acquired no jurisdiction by a service of its process upon the executor. �The only method by which the property of a partnership dissolved by death can be drawn into the bankrupt court is by service on the surviving partner, in whom is the title to ail the partnership property. Ulrich was the surviving partner of the firm of J. Ulrich & C!o. No service of any kind was ever attempted to be made on him. But it is said he ac- cepted a discharge from the bankrupt court. This, however, does not cure the want of service, at least so far as it con- cems the individual property of Jones, even if it is effectuai as to the partnership property. It is, to put it in the best light for the jurisdiction, the entry of an appearance after judg- ment without process and without service of any kind. The acceptancff of the dischage may estop Ulrich; it can have no other effect. My view is, therefore, that the bankrupt court,, by the proceedings in bankruptcy against J. Ulrich & Co., acquired no jurisdiction over the individual property of Jones, a deceased member of the firm, and that the title of defend- ant in this action derived through said proceedings is null and void. �With the bankrupt proceedings must fall the plea of the two years' limitation prescribed by the second section of the bankrupt act against suits between an assignee in bankruptcy and any person claiming an adverse interest touching any property or rights of property transferable to or vested in the assignee. If the bankrupt proceedings are void for want of jurisdiction there was no adjudication of bankruptcy, no bankrupt, no assignee, and no property transferable to or vested in him. In short, ail the attempted proceedings in brnkruptey are as if they never had existed. There is, there- fore. no basis for the limitation to rest on. �There must be a finding and judgraent for the-çlaintiffs. ����