Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/74

 62 FEDERAL REPORTER. �other suits in which the title is transferred pendente lite." The court proceeds to state the grounds of its decision, and reaches the conclusion that there is no reason why the same prineiple should net apply to the transfer made by a bank- ruptcy.proeeeding as to a sale and conveyance by the mort- gagor pending suit ; and that in neither case is the court pre- vented from prOo^eding in the suit without the person in whom the title has vested, and that the title of thepurchaser under the decree would not in such case be affected. It is further said, if there is any reason for interposing, the assignee can have himself substituted for the bankrupt, or made a defendant on petition. If he chooses to; let the suit proeeed without such defence, he stands as any other person would on whom the title has fallen since the suit commenced. �It is said, by petitioner's counsel, Eyster v. Gaff is not in point, for the reason that the claim there was that the fore- closure proceedings, under which Gaff claimed title, were Toid for want of jurisdiction, because the assignee in bankruptcy was not made a party, and that such wantof jurisdiction was sought to be set up in the ejectment suit, not in the foreclos- ure suit. But the court takes the broad ground, from which there appears to be no escape, that there is nothing in the bankrupt law, or in the nature of proceedings in bankruptcy, which takes the interest in the mortgaged property acquired by the assignee out of the rule which govems as to vol- untary conveyances by a defendant mortgagor pendente lite. This is an assertion by the supreme court of the doctrine that, in effect, the parties to the suit may wholly disregard the fact that the legal title to the property in controversy has, since the commencement of the suit, beoome invested in an assignee of a bankrupt defendant. �Again, it would seem that defendant Hunt should have brought forward his petition at an earlier stage of the suit, if his interests required other persons to be made parties, and that he should not now be permitted, after the cause is noticed for hearing, to have the delay necessary to bring them in. I do not concede that it is his right to have them made defendants. The assignees were bound to take notice of suits ��� �