94 F.lCDlllItAt. :RIlPPR'l'ER.
bein existence anywhere beforetbebankruptcy al!l avaUd claim. against ,Dyer but in the bands of ·Jackson" .norsince but in bis:bands, wbere it would belong. to the tru:stee,.oJ:'ln :tQe hands of the trustee, as an asset. of the estate. ,might be embar-. r,aSl1lpdif the, Qank!Jb9uld, it; , therefore-such indorsement, shq:nld.,be restrclj\\necJ, a,nd Dyerlilhould ,not then be permitted to setup "tbenotesQ, pnaccounted, ·for,against payment to the trustee of." wl;Lat is justly due from him to the estate. Theile, proceedings may remain, pendingfol'. ,out these suggestions. Ordel'ed accordingly·.
GOODIER v. BARNES etaL' (Circuit Oourt, N.
June 19, 1899.)
BANJmUPTCy-JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURT-CITIZENSHIP.
Under Bankruptcy Act 1898, § 23, a circuit court of the United States has no' jurisdiction of a bUl In equity by a trustee In bankruptcy to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance of property by the bankrupt, when the bankall citizens of the same state. rupt, the trustee, and the
." , , ' ,
Clause c of section 23, providing that "the United States circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts, of bankruptcy, within thelrl'espectlve territorial limits, of::the offenses enumerated in this act," enumerated" meaning the bas no appUcablllty to civil actions; crImes described In section 29. .: .
IJ:l Eqtrlty. ,Motion to dismiss the bill on the gl'Qund that this court has no jurisdiction of,th,e action, which,is by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside an alleged fraudulent transfer by the bankrupt of his property. All tbe parties are of this state and reside in this district.
Fred. G. Fincke, for the' motion. Fred. H. Hazard, opposed.
COXE, District papeJ.'jilhave been submitted on this. motion except the briefs., The court understands .that no objection is made to tlle form ofJhe motiouand the sole questiQn which counsel desire the court to determipe is whether. or' not the circuit court has, jurisdiction ,e» the aetion.The court hali! been unable to find an authority sristaiDing the jq.risdicHon; nOne is cited. 'A persuasive argument, sustained: 'by recent decisions, can be advanced in fawr of thejUJ:isdic1joq of the district court in these cases, but this conclusion, if affirmed, will not aid the complainant. Although the authorities. are not il;1.:accord as to the proper constrllction of the present act, they all, apparently, .agree that prohibits the circuit from entertaining of of this characBurnett v. Mercantile 00.,91 Fed. 360; Mitchell v. McClure, Id. 621; In re Id. 366; Car1;erv. Hobbs, 92 Fed. 594; In re Abraham, '013 Fed. 767; Hicks v. Knost, INat.Bankr. News, 336, 94 Fed. 625.
CAMP V. ZELLARS.
The proposition that paragraph c of section 23 of the act isapplicable to a civil action cannot be maintained. It is limited by express words to "the offenses enumerated in this act," namely, the crimes described in section 29. The motion is granted.
CA;V1P v. ZELLARS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 1, 1899.)
The district court, as a court of bankruptcy, has no jurisdiction of a petition by a trustee in bankruptcy for the cancellation of a conveyance of land previously made by the bankrupt to his wife, and alleged to have been fraudulent as to creditors, and for the recovery of the land for the benefit of the estate, nor to enjoin the bankrupt's wife from prosecuting a suit against the trustee to recover personal property claimed by her.
Petition for Revision of Decision of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia.
H. A. & B. T. Camp were duly declared bankrupts as a partnership and as individuals. T. 1\'1. Zellars was appointed trustee of the estates of said bankrupts. After the passage of the bankruptcy act, and within four months of the time in which the petition in involuntary bankruptcy was filed in this cause, H. A. Camp conveyed certain real estate to his wife, Mrs. C. B. Camp, and placed her in possession of the same. T.:\1. as trustee, filed a petition in said United States district court against :\1rs. C. B. Camp, seeking to have said conveyance canceled, and to recover said lands for the benefit of the estate. The petition of· said trustee is in the nature of a suit to cancel the said conveyance as fraudulent. The petition also alleges that Mrs. C. B. Camp has brought certain suits against the trustee to recover personal property claimed by her. The petitioner seeks to have these suits enjoineu. :\lrs. Camp filed a uemurrer to this petition, upon the ground that the district court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the question, and beeause the eontroversies referred to in said petition must be determined by a separate action at law or in equity, they being no part of the b:mkruptey proeeedings propel'. This demurrer was overruled by the distrlet court. The matter is brought to this court by a petition filed by Mrs.C. B. Camp, alleging that the district court erred in overruling the demurrer, and praying that this court superintend and revise the action of the district court.
H. A. Hall, for petitioner. Alex. W. Smith, for respondent. Before l'ARDEE,McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. We are of the opiniC)n that the district court erred in overruling the demurrer. The judgment .of the district court is reversed. The district court is directed to sustain the demurrer of Mrs. C. B. Camp to the said petition filed by T. M. Zellars, trustee. Bernheimer v. Bryan (present term) 93 Fed. 767.