¶11. An action of ejectment between citizens of the same state set out the following facts as giving jurisdiction to the Circuit Court of the Uni'tc-d States, in which it was brought, viz: The plaintiff had been adjudged a bankrupt; the land in controversy had been set apart to him as an exemption; and he had been finally discharged. Shortly before his adjudication in bankruptcy, a fi.fa. from the Circuit Court had been levied by the Uhited'Sfcates Marshal, and he proceeded *131■to sell in spite of the bankruptcy, and the. purchaser afterwards conveyed the land, with a warranty of title, to another:
¶2Held that the suit was one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Circuit Court had jurisdiction thereof. Const. U. S., Art. 3, §2; Supp. Rev. Stats., U. S., p. 173; Court, Art. 1, §8, Rev. Stats., §711; Stats, at Large, vol. 18, §78, (Act June 22,1884); 17 Ga., 71, 76, 77 and cites U. S. Ill, R.', 538; 6 Wheat., 378.
¶3(a) The action of ejectment having been brought against the warrantee-under the purchaser at the marshal’s sale, and the warrantor having been notified of the suit and conducted the defense of it by attorneys, this was in effect a vouching of the warrantor, and he was bound by the judgment rendered, in a subsequent suit on the warranty. 59 Ga., 124, 126.
¶4(b) The cases in 99 U. S., 547 and 5 Sawyer, 39, differ from the present case.
¶52. The evidence to sustain the plaintiff’s case for a breach of covenant or warranty of title was ample, and the judgment awarding a non-suit was error.
¶63. It is the duty of courts to end and not to protract litigation. A ■request to give such direction to this case as will enable the defendant to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States must be denied. -Comity to another court forbids it.
¶7Judgment reversed.