sums v. cnrrrsuomt. 43,
O’Neal 02iO’Neal, for complainants. '" l · » — -
D. P. Lewis and J .` B. Moore, for defendants. ,—,
Pmons, J. The petition in this case was Bled in the district court _
to enjoin the defendants Crittenden and Weaver from further prose- V
cuting or enforcing their suits or claims against certain lands in the
state chancery court for the second district of the northern chancery _
division of Alabama, and to enjoin the defendant Andrews, register
of- aforesaid chancery court, from advertising and selling said lands
under order of said chancery court. The petition, which is lengthy,
sets out in substance that the lands described formed part of the as-,
sets belonging to one Weaver, who had been compelled by the judg-
ment of the district court to make a surrender in bankruptcy, and-
so, after certain litigation, passed into the hands of Harris, assignee
of said Weaver, with certain real and fictitious liens upon them,
who, under a proper order and decree of the district court, sold and
conveyed them to Adams, plaintiff; that after the sale made in bank-
ruptcy the defendants Crittenden and Weaver, claiming to have  
vendors’ liens upon the land in question, are seeking to enforce them
against the property in the state chancery court, and have prose-.
cuted their claims to judgment, and are about to cause the lands to
be sold under the decree obtained. The state court is alleged to be
wholly without jurisdiction, by reason of the provisions of the bank-
rupt law of the United States; and the defendants are alleged to be
violating the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States;
and that the proceedings will damage plaintiffs by throwing a cloud
p _ on their title. The record shows that the sale made by the assignee
in bankruptcy has been completed and ratified by the court, and the
proceeds thereof received by the assignee; that a Bnal discharge has
been granted the bankrupt, but no final distribution has been made,
p and to that extent the bankruptcy proceedings may be considered as
still pending. r
_ It further appears that the prayer of the petition was for an in-
junction to issue, and that, upon the hearing, the injunction should
be made perpetual. The petition was Bled on the twelfth day of
April, 1879. On the fourth day of May following, defendant Critten-
den filed demurrer and answer. On the   day of May, defendant
Weaver Bled demurrer and answer; and on the same day the district
A judge made this order: i
‘¥ This cause having come on to be heard, and after argument by counsel
_ and consideration by the court, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the
clerk of this court issue the writ of injunction in accordance with the prayer
of the petition   .
_ Thereupon, May 7 ,· 1879, the clerk issued an injunction contain-
mg an order for the defendants to show cause at the next term of the
court why the same should not be made absolute, which was served.
November 4, 1879, the defendants Bled, on many grounds, a motion
to dismiss the petition and dissolve the injunction. Afterwards, on