§ 9. A few miscellaneous cases may properly here be stated, where the remedy of injunction has been invoked in reference to the estates of persons deceased.

§ 10. Where a judge of an orphans' court is advised that an injunction has been granted at the instance of an executor, to restrain the heirs and distributees from proceeding with a settlement begun in such court; he should suspend all further proceeding, as long as the injunction continues in force.1

§ 11. Where suits are enjoined before judgment, and a bond for the debt given by the administrator, he becomes personally liable, if the injunction is dissolved and the suits are prosecuted to judgment.❜

§ 12. The power of the Court of Chancery of Maryland, to grant injunctions to restrain creditors from proceeding at law, after a decree for an account, is not confined to cases in which the application is made by the executor or administrator, but extends to applications made by the heir, or by another creditor, or a common legatee, or by a residuary legatee.3

§ 13. A., an infant, died intestate, possessed of a slave, and leaving B., an infant brother, her sole distributee. There being no debts, no administration was taken out, but the slave passed into the hands of the father of B., and was levied on under an execution against him. Held, equity would restrain a sale.'

§ 14. Where two administrators make a sale, but only one executes the deed; equity will enjoin an ejectment brought by the heirs on this ground."

The State v. The Judge, 15 Ala. 740.

2 Brown v. Speight, 30 Miss. 45.
3 Boyd v. Harris, 1 Maryland Ch.

Decis. 466. See Jackson v. Leaf, 1
Jac. & W. 229.

Gould v. Hill, 18 Ala. 457.
5 Wortman v. Skinner, 1 Beasl.

15. One distributee, who makes a fraudulent representation as to property of the estate offered for sale, without the knowledge of the others, does not thereby affect their rights. The purchaser has his remedy against him; and he cannot enjoin the purchase-money.1

I Williams v. McCormack, 7 Humph. 308.

CHAPTER XVII.

BANKRUPTS AND INSOLVENTS.

§ 1. INJUNCTION is a remedy often resorted to with reference to proceedings in bankruptcy and insolvency.

§ 2. In a previous chapter-Chap. VI.-we have referred to an important controversy which arose between the United States Court and the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, with reference to the effect of an attachment of property, prior to the institution of bankruptcy proceedings, and the claim of the State Court to enforce and perfect such attachment, notwithstanding the subsequent assignment. In the present connection it may be added, that, under the late bankrupt law, the District Court, pending bankruptcy proceedings therein, was held to have the power of enjoining the enforcement of debts due from the bankrupt in a State court; and it was also held that an officer would be liable for selling property after such injunction. And, in general, the comprehensive jurisdiction given to the courts of the United States, under the bankrupt law, was held to involve to a certain extent a control over those of the States. Judge Story, who may be regarded as emphatically the champion of the most enlarged jurisdiction of the former tribunals, remarked: "Under the provisions of the sixth section of the act, the District Court does possess full jurisdiction to suspend or control such proceedings in the State courts, not by acting on the courts, over which it possesses no authority, but by acting on the parties through the instrumentality of an injunction or other remedial proceedings

1 Stinson v. M'Murray, 6 Humph. 339.

in equity upon due application made by the assignee, and a proper case being laid before the court requiring such interference. Such a course is very familiar in courts of chancery, in cases where a creditor's bill is filed for the administration of the estate of a deceased person, and it becomes necessary or proper to take the whole assets into the hands of the courts, for the purpose of collecting and marshalling the assets, ascertaining and adjusting conflicting priorities and claims, and accomplishing a due and equitable distribution among all the parties in interest in the estate. Similar proceedings have been instituted in England in cases of bankruptcy, and they were, without doubt, in the contemplation of Congress, as indispensable to the practical working of the bankrupt system."

§ 3. In Massachusetts, the remedy of a party whose rights are affected by an assignment under the insolvent laws, when the preliminary proceedings are irregular, is by application in equity to arrest the proceedings, and set aside the assignment. This may be done, on petition, by any party aggrieved, and the assignment will thereupon be adjudged, once for all, to be valid or invalid. And insolvency proceedings, commenced before a judge having no jurisdiction, will be set aside on a bill filed under statute 1838, c. 163, s. 18, more than a year after. "Lapse of time could only be evidence of acquiescence and consequent assent; and in a case like the present, affecting a great variety of persons and interests, consent cannot give jurisdiction." So, in Maryland, a bill was filed in chancery on the 14th September, 1846, by the creditors of A., alleging his insolvent condition, and that he designed to give an undue preference to certain of his creditors, especially B. and wife. Upon this bill an injunction was

1 Christy, 3 How. 318. See Regina v. Law, 40 Eng. Law and Eq. 64; Moore v. Jones, 23 Verm. 739.

Hawson v. Paige, 3 Gray, 239; Partridge v. Hannum, 2 Met. 569;

Wheelock v. Hastings, 4 Met. 504. See Cheshire, &c. v. Gay, 3 Gray, 531.

Grafton, &c. v. Bickford; per Shaw, C. J., 15 Gray, 564, 574.

granted, restraining A. from giving, and B. and wife from taking, any such preference. On the 29th of the same month, B. and wife filed a bill on the equity side of the Baltimore County Court, alleging A.'s indebtedness to them on account of his misapplication of certain trust funds belonging to the wife, and his promise to secure them by a conveyance of certain real estate, which he had failed to do, and praying that he might be decreed to pay them the sum thus due under the trust. A. answered this bill, admitting its averments, and, on the 31st of October following, a decree was passed by the Baltimore County Court, directing A. to bring into court the amount ascertained and admitted to be due to the complainants. Held, that the original bill of September 14th drew to the Court of Chancery the whole litigation in regard to the distribution of A.'s estate; that the proceedings of B. and wife, in the Baltimore County Court, were in violation of the Chancellor's injunction; and that it was competent for the Court of Chancery to restrain, by injunction, the execution of this decree, and treat the whole proceeding in the county court as a nullity. Also, that the appropriate remedy for B. and wife was in chancery, on the original bill, that court having ample power to afford them the relief which they sought in another form, in another court of concurrent jurisdiction.1

§ 4. The plaintiff, an insolvent, agreed upon a certain composition with his creditors. The defendant, a creditor, refused to come in unless the plaintiff would give his note for the balance, which he did; and the defendant brought an action upon the note, having received the agreed percentage. Held, such suit should be enjoined."

Albert v. Winn, 7 Gill, 446.

2 Constantein v. Blache, 1 Cox, 287.