Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/606

 ■594 FEDERAL REPORTER. �carry on the prooeediugs against the assignee or Delaplaine ■without having first proved its debt. The matter was heard before Mr. Justice Nelson in the circuit court, and he made a written decision on November 28, 1863, in which he said that he was satisfied that the order of sale was improvidently granted, and that it should be set aside; and alsp that the conveyance under it by the assignee to Delaplaine should be delivered up and cancelled, and the money paid by him, and in court, be refunded to him, and that received by the as- signee, and not in court, be refunded by the assignee, and that he did not doubt that the district court h ad full power and jurisdiction to make an order to the above effeet. As to the prayer for a conveyance to the bank by the assignee, he said that the district court had no power to order it to be ruade, and that the asset ought to be sold at public auction, Thereupon the district court, by an order made June 17, 1864, dismissed the petition of the bank, and ordered that the sale by the assignee to Delaplaine be set aside as irregular, inequitable, and void, and that the order for such sale be revoked, as having been obtained by prooeedings that were irregular and inequitable. The written decision of the dis- trict court, resulting in said order, proceeds, in not ordering a deed to be given to the bank, and in not awarding any further relief to the bank against Delaplaine or the assignee, on the view that the bank showed no subsieting title or inter- est in itself warranting the granting of such further relief. It had no such interest as that of being in possession of th© land, claiming title to it, which makes the distinction between the petitioner in that case and the petitioner ij^ the Conant Case and in the present case. But the court, set in motion ■by the petition of the bank, set aside the deed, although it •did not order it to be delivered up. :, �Nothing is adjourned in the present case into this court but the question of power on the facts stated. The evidence takenis not before this court. It ia not intended, therefqre, in anything that bas been said, to express or intimate any •opinion by this court as to what ought or ought not to be ��� �