and notes and mortgages obtained, has jurisdiction of plenary suit to determine whether real estate notes and mortgages belonged to estate of bankrupt.

Distinguished in In re Ballou, 215 Fed. 813, holding summary proceeding is not proper to enforce performance of contract between third person and bankrupt; Le Master v. Spencer, 203 Fed. 215, 121 C. C. A. 416, holding bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to determine title to property of bankrupt seized by marshal as receiver in bankruptcy as against adverse claimant.,

Where original court of bankruptcy could act summarily, another court of bankruptcy sitting in another district, can do so in aid of court of original jurisdiction.

Approved in In re Elkus, 216 U. S. 117, 54 L. Ed. 408, 30 Sup. Ct. 377, following rule; Lovell v. Isidore Newman & Son, 227 U. S. 418, 57 L. Ed. 580, 33 Sup. Ct. 375, In re Sage, 224 Fed. 530, In re Printograph Sales Co., 210 Fed. 568, and Lazarus v. Prentice, 234 U. S. 267, 58 L. Ed. 1307, 34 Sup. Ct. 851, all holding under amendment of 1910 to Bankruptcy Act, § 2, el. 20, bankruptcy court has ancillary jurisdiction over persons and property within its jurisdiction in aid of trustee or receiver appointed in another jurisdiction; Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U. S. 205, 57 L. Ed. 802, 33 Sup. Ct. 484, holding bankruptcy court was in possession of crop of rice and had jurisdiction to administer it as assets of estate; Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 311, 56 L. Ed. 215, 32 Sup. Ct. 96, holding bankruptcy court has no power to issue ex parte injunction without notice or service of process to restrain creditor from suing in State court outside jurisdiction of bankruptcy court; The Casco, 230 Fed. 931, denying motion of libelant, seeking to enforce maritime lien, for order to require receiver to surrender vessel; Progressive Building etc. Co. v. Hall, 220 Fed. 46, 47, 135 C. C. A. 613, holding bankruptcy court in eastern district of Virginia has no jurisdiction to enjoin assignment of future wages by bankrupt to corporation having its principal place of business in western district; In re Geller, 216 Fed. 559, 561, holding bankruptcy court of one district cannot, by service of process outside of district, obtain jurisdiction to order nonresident to deliver property to trustee; In re Boston-CerrillosMines Corp., 206 Fed. 795, holding process of bankruptcy court in Massachusetts is without efficacy in New Mexico; In re A. Musica & Son, 205 Fed. 415, holding Federal District Court in Louisiana has ancillary jurisdiction to aid receiver appointed by court of original jurisdiction in New York to recover money from bankrupts absconding from New York; In re Britannia Min. Co., 203 Fed. 453, 121 C. C. A. 395, holding act of 1893 requiring judicial sales of property to be made. on property or at courthouse in county where land lies, does not apply to sales in bankruptcy and sale in Wisconsin of bankrupt's equity of redemption in Montana; In re Farrell, 201, Fed. 340, 119 C. C. A. 576, denying jurisdiction of bankruptcy court to compel fund to be turned.

over to trustee, where eighteen months prior to adjudication of bankruptcy against building contractor suits were commenced in State court in another Federal district to enforce liens against fund; In re Rathfon Bros., 200 Fed. 109, 110, holding summary proceeding by trustee to recover property belonging to bankrupt's estate in possession of nonresident can only be maintained in district of such person's residence; In re Britannia Min. Co., 197 Fed. 462, holding act of 1893 requiring judicial sales to be made on land or at courthouse in county in which land lies is applicable to sales in bankruptcy, and sale in Wisconsin of equity of redemption in Montana mine, is void; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gaskell, 195 Fed. 870, 871, 115 C. C. A. 527, holding District Court which, in exercise of ancillary jurisdiction, has seized property of partnership as property of another partnership against which bankruptcy proceedings have been commenced in another district, has jurisdiction to determine title to property seized; In re Robinson, 179 Fed. 725, holding application for order of examination, in support of creditor's objections to bankrupt's discharge, should be made to Federal court in district in which witness resides; Staunton v. Wooden, 179 Fed. 64, 102 C. C. A. 355, holding bankruptcy court cannot issue process to be enforced in another jurisdiction, nor make summary order for delivery of property, but such order may be obtained by ancillary proceedings by trustee in court of district in which it is to be executed. Explained in De Friece v. Bryant, 232 Fed. 237, 239, holding bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to enjoin assertion of claim to notes in possession of trustee based on attachment sale void in bankruptcy, and court of another district has ancillary jurisdiction over suit for injunction under Bankruptcy Act, § 2, cl. 20.

Distinguished in Robertson v. Howard, 229 U. S. 261, 57 L. Ed. 1178, 33 Sup. Ct. 854, holding bankruptcy court in Illinois acquired jurisdiction over land in Kansas upon filing of petition and had jurisdiction to order sale of certificates.

216 U. S. 115–117, 54 L. Ed. 407, 30 Sup. Ct. 377, IN RE ELKUS (MATTER OF MADISON STEEL CO.).

United States District Court has jurisdiction to order examination of witnesses who are residents of district, although bankruptcy proceeding in which examination is desired is in another district.

Approved in In re Robinson, 179 Fed. 725, holding application for order of examination, in support of creditor's objection to bankrupt's discharge, should be made to Federal court in district in which witness resides.

District Court of United States sitting in bankruptcy has ancillary jurisdiction to make orders and issue process in aid of proceedings pending in District Court of another district.

Approved in In re Printograph Sales Co., 210 Fed. 568, Lovell v. Isidore Newman & Son, 227 U. S. 418, 57 L. Ed. 580, 33 Sup. Ct. 375,

both holding under act of 1910, bankruptcy court has ancillary jurisdiction in aid of jurisdiction of bankruptcy court in another jurisdiction appointing receiver or trustee; Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 311, 56 L. Ed. 215, 32 Sup. Ct. 96, holding bankruptcy court has no power to issue ex parte injunction without notice or service of process to restrain creditor from suing in State court outside jurisdiction of bankruptcy court; Orinoco Iron Co. v. Metzel, 230 Fed. 46, 144 C. C. A. 338, holding bankruptcy court in Ohio may enjoin suit in District of Columbia to establish trust maleficio in indemnity fund held by government for benefit of creditors; In re Patterson Lumber Co., 228 Fed. 917, holding in ancillary proceeding, trustee cannot foreclose mortgaged property without leave of bankruptcy court having jurisdiction of mortgaged premises to proceed; Progressive Building etc. Co. v. Hall, 220 Fed. 47, 135 C. C. A. 613, holding bankruptcy court in eastern district of Virginia has no jurisdiction to enjoin assignment of future wages by bankrupt to corporation having its principal place of business in western district; In re Geller, 216 Fed. 561, holding bankruptcy court of one district cannot by service of process outside of district obtain jurisdiction to order nonresident to deliver property to trustee; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gaskell, 195 Fed. 870, 115 C. C. A. 527, holding District Court, having, in exercise of ancillary jurisdiction, seized property of partnership as property of another partnership against which bankruptcy proceedings have been commenced in another district, has jurisdiction to determine title to such property.

Explained in De Friece v. Bryant, 232 Fed. 237, 239, holding bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to enjoin assertion of claim to notes in possession of trustee based on sale on attachment, which was void under Bankruptcy Act, and court of another district has ancillary jurisdiction to enjoin such claim under Bankruptcy Act, § 2, cl. 20. Ancillary jurisdiction of bankruptcy. Note, 17 Ann. Cas. 973.

216 U. S. 117-121, 54 L. Ed. 408, 30 Sup. Ct. 367, WOODSIDE v. BECKHAM.

Where plaintiff, who is not owner, sues as assignee of several claims, and none of claims is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on Federal court, that court has no jurisdiction, although claims in aggregate exceed jurisdictional amount.

Approved in State v. Title Guaranty etc. Co., 27 Idaho, 759, 152 Pac. 191, and Title Guaranty etc. Co. v. Idaho, 240 U. S. 140, 60 L. Ed. 569, 36 Sup. Ct. 346, both holding suit by State, as nominal party on behalf of depositors of bank, cannot be removed where none of separate judgments is large enough to confer jurisdiction; Bagnell v. Ives, 184 Fed. 470, holding owners of separate judgments against insolvent Missouri corporation, each entitled under State statute to maintain action against

stockholder whose stock is not fully paid to recover amount of judgment, cannot join in action against stockholder.

216 U. S. 122-134, 54 L. Ed. 411, 30 Sup. Ct. 378, ATLANTIC C. L. R. R. CO. v. MAZURSKY.

South Carolina statute of 1903 requiring carrier to settle claims for loss of or damage to freight while in its possession in State within specified time is not void as interference with interstate commerce in absence of congressional action on same subject.

Approved in Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 416, L. R. A. 1915E, 942, 58 L. Ed. 1381, 34 Sup. Ct. 790, upholding Texas statute of 1909 allowing attorney's fee for claims of less than specified amount, as applied to claim for interstate shipment; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Edwards. 94 Ark. 399, 127 S. W. 715, upholding Act of 1907, § 3, imposing penalty upon railroad for failure to give notice to consignee of arrival of shipment within specified time, as applied to interstate shipment; Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 179 Ind. 37, 100 N. E. 342, upholding Burns' Ann. Stats. 1908, § 5280, requiring railroad locomotives and cars to be equipped with grab-irons or handholds in sides or ends thereof, and section 5287, imposing penalty for violation; Thurston v. Southern Ry. Co., 165 N. C. 599, 81 S. E. 786, upholding Revisal 1905, § 2644, imposing penalty for failure to refund overcharge within time specified by section 2643; Reid v. Southern Ry. Co., 153 N. C. 495, 69 S. E. 620, upholding Revisal 1905, § 2631, imposing penalty on carrier for refusing to receive interstate shipment of freight; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Beatty, 34 Okl. 324, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 984, 118 Pac. 368, upholding act of legislature of Oklahoma Territory of 1905 (Sess. Laws 1905, c. 10, art. II, § 2), imposing penalty upon carrier for failure to furnish cars within four days after request and excusing carrier for special causes; Du Pre v. Columbia etc. R. Co., 98 S. C. 470, 79 S. E. 311, holding Carmack Amendment of 1906 does not deprive consignee of interstate shipment of right to penalty for failure. of terminal carrier to pay damages under act of 1910 (Civ. Code 1912, § 2572); Varnville Furniture Co. v. Charleston etc. Ry. Co., 98 S. C. 66, 67, 68, 78, 82, 83, 79 S. E. 701, 702, 705, 707, holding Civ. Code 1912, § 2573, requiring carriers to pay overcharges of freight or for loss or damage to property within specified time was not superseded as to interstate shipment by Carmack Amendment of 1906; dissenting opinion in Traynham v. Charleston etc. Ry. Co., 92 S. C. 56, 75 S. E. 385, majority holding interstate shipment was not subject to act of 1907, imposing penalty on carrier for delay.

Distinguished in Charleston etc. Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U. S. 601, 602, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 333, 59 L. Ed. 1138, 1139, 35 Sup. Ct. 715, 100 S. C. 229, holding provision of South Carolina Code of 1912, $ 2573, imposing penalty on carrier failing to settle claim within specified time is void under Carmack Amendment of 1906; Southern Ry.

Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 436, 56° L. Ed. 260, 32 Sup. Ct. 140, holding North Carolina statute requiring carriers to transport freight as soon as received to interstate points under penalties for failure, is void as in conflict with Hepburn Act of 1906, § 2; Fornel v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 65 Fla. 109, 61 South. 197, granting motion to strike from counts, in action for damage to interstate shipment based on Carmack Amendment to Hepburn Act of 1906, those portions relating to recovery of interest and attorney's fees under Laws of Florida of 1907, c. 5618; Blaloch Hardware Co. v. Seaboard etc. Ry. Co., 170 N. C. 399, 86 S. E. 1027, holding Revisal 1905, §§ 2643, 2644, imposing penalty upon carrier for failure to refund overcharge is void as in conflict with Act of 1906, c. 3591, § 7 (Carmack Amendment); Morphis v. Southern Express Co., 167 N. C. 140, 83 S. E. 2, holding Revisal 1905, § 2634, as amended by Laws 1911, c. 139, requiring carrier to adjust or pay claims for loss or damage to property within specified time was superseded as to interstate shipments by rule of Interstate Commerce Commission of 1913.

Validity of statute imposing penalty on carrier of goods or livestock for failure to pay claim within certain time. Notes, 20 Ann. Cas. 1057; Ann. Cas. 1916D, 336.

Constitutionality of statute imposing penalty or added liability for failure of carrier to pay claim. Note, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 107. 216 U. S. 134–138, 54 L. Ed. 418, 30 Sup. Ct. 368, ZARTMAN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF WATERLOO.

Bankruptcy Act does not suspend jurisdiction of equity court to correct errors in written contract made by mutual mistake, and trustee in bankruptcy takes property subject to all valid claims, liens and equities, including power of equity court to correct manifest error by mutual mistake in agreement made prior to filing of petition.

Approved in Brown v. Massachusetts Hide Corp., 218 Fed. 771, 134 C. C. A. 447, holding credit agreement between importer and banker did not limit banker to lien on proceeds of each importation for amount of credit for that shipment, but advances made under credit on other shipments though not due, were chargeable against balance in bankers' hands at time of insolvency of importer; Hartman v. Swiger, 215 Fed. 989, holding attorneys have lien on money in their hands for value of services in stockholder's suit which is good against trustee in bankruptcy, and also, under West Virginia law, against assignees of stock; In re Scruggs, 205 Fed. 675, holding under lease of storehouse giving lien on bankrupt's goods and furniture on leased premises for rent for whole term, rent to accrue after adjudication is not provable against bankrupt's general estate, but is provable against particular property subject to lien; In re Searles, 200 Fed. 894, creditor of bankrupt holding note secured by collateral and another note which was unsecured is entitled to apply surplus from sale of collateral to unsecured note, although no claim therefor was made in his proof; In re J. S. Appel Suit