44 A FEDERAL REPORTER. . .
the sixteenth of December, the motion to dissolve was heard and
denied by the judge. `Finally, on February 247, 1881, the district
court rendered a judgment, finding for the defendants, and decreeing
"that the petition for injunction or restraining order be denied and
the same is dismissed, and the tempora.ry injunction heretofore
granted by the court upon the petition is hereby dissolved;" and
from this judgment the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.
The first question in proper order presented in this court, necessary ,
to pass upon, is whether the injunction granted May 5, 1879, was
or not a temporary injunction, or whether the order or judgment
rendered that day was not nnal on its merits, ordering and per-
petuating the injunction in the same decree. In the record there is
no notice to defendants for application for injunction, though, as they
appeared and filed demurrers and answers, they must have had no-
tice. Nor in the record, until the day of the final decree, is there
anything to show but the plaintiffs had always taken and treated the
injunction as temporary.
So that it may be considered that up to the final decree all the.
parties, and the judge himself, held and treated the first injunction
as temporary only. The terms of the injunction are to that pur-
port. At the first hearing it does not appear that any evidence was
taken or considered. It was neither regular nor proper to have
issued a perpetual injunction at that stage of the case. That no
bond was required proves nothing, as that was, considering the in-
junction as a restraining order merely, within the discretion of they
court.
Under these circumstances, I do not well see how this court can
declare that a perpetual injunction which was neither so in terms nor
in intention.
The only remaining question of the many raised and ably argued,
necessary to dei-ide, is whether the district court of the United
States sitting in bankruptcy, and undoubtedly having exclusive juris-
diction against the state courts over all questions relating to the as-
certainment and liquidation of the liens and specific claims bearing
A on the bankrupts assets, and extending to all acts, matters, and
things to be done under and in virtue of the bankruptcy until the
final distribution and settlement of the estate of the bankrupt, and the
close of the proceedings in bankruptcy, will, after property of the court
bankrupt his lroen sold and the proceeds received, and neither the
court nor the assignee nor creditors have any further interest in it, in-
terfere at the instance of the purchaser to prevent, by injunction, par-
ties, strangers ro the bankruptcy, from asserting any claims they may
have, or pretend to have, against the property, in any of the courts
of the several states, and this, notwithstanding no final distribution
has been made in the bankruptcy.
It would seem that this question as stated would suggest its own
answer. Because one court has exclusive jurisdiction of a matter, it