Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/205

 190 FEDERAL REPORTER. �proceedings under the insolvent laws of the state, which provide for the manner of administering property assigned for the benefit of the creditera. Such assignments in nowise affect the legal and equita- ble liens which existed against the property at the date of the assign- ment. The persons in whose favor these liens exist are not made parties to the proceedings by the assignee to sell the property, and certainly no orders of the court, affecting their rights, would be bind- ing upon them, unless they were parties thereto. Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 128. The plea does not allege that the plaintiff was before the court in said proceedings, by being made a party thereto, but it is claimed only that by the proceedings and order of sale the probate court acquired exclusive jurisdiction, so that this court has no juris- diction to maintain this suit. It is certainly very clear that all the elements of jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States are alleged in this bill. It is a controversy between citizens of different states. The amount exceeds $500, exclusive of costs. The real estate and the principal party in interest are in the district in which the suit is brought. None of these allegations are controverted by this plea, but it is sought to defeat the jurisdiction solely upon the ground of the assignment, and the proceedings in the probate court to ad- minister it. The question presented by this plea is not whether, when property has been seized by operation of the insolvent laws of a state, and is being administered by her courts for the benefit of creditors, this court can take possession of the same property and admin- ister it. It has been held by the supreme court of the United States that in suc^ cases the property could not be seized on execution from this court. Williams v. Benedict, 8 How. 107; Bank of Tennessee v. Harn, 17 How. 160. But it is whether this court, in a case where, by the constitution and laws,it has jurisdiction, can be prevented, by an assignment and proceeding under it, from entertaining jurisdiction and determining the rights of the parties. In each of the last cases referred to, the court recognize the right of the court to proceed to judgment, but determine that no execution could be levied on the property. And there are numerous cases in which jurisdiction has been maintained in the federal courts against administrators, while the estate was in proeess of settlement by the state courts, the rights of the parties ascertained and iixed, and their satisfaction to be made under the laws of the state. But in this case the property which is sought to be made applicable to the satisfaction of the decree, if one should be rendered, is property which had been set apart by the owner especially for that purpose, and which the assignment could ��� �