Amns v. cmrrsuomu. 45
does not follow that it will enjoin parties from proceeding or attempt·
ing to proceed in some other form. There can be no question that
the United States district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction
in admiralty; but those courts do not issue injunctions to hinder the
state courts from infringing on their jurisdiction. There is a remedy
in another direction, and the same remedy, it seems to me, can be,
unless lost by delay, resorted to bythe parties in this case.
The reasoning of Judge Him., in the case of Penny v. Taylor, 10
N. B. B. 200, is applicable in full force to this case. The rights of
the parties, under the laws of the United States andthe decrees of
the district court of this district, are well ascertained and determined,
and every court in the country is bound to, and, it is presumed, will,.
maintain them. ·If not maintaining them to the satisfaction of the
parties, the remedy would lie, not by an injunction from another
court, but by appeal to the proper superior court, and, finally, to the
_ supreme court of the United States, if justice were not sooner done
in the premises.
__ If the property in controversy were in anywise under control of
the bankrupt court, or in anywise affected the bankrupt estate, it g
would be decidedly different. But the bankrupt court is not for all
time, or any time, a warranty of title to property sold, disposed of,
and paid for under its orders.
The case of Hewitt v. Norton, 1 Woods, 71, was a case where the
property was in the hands of the assignee. No other conclusion can
be arrived at from an examination of the whole case.
The authorities quoted in Bump, Bankr. (9th Ed.) 177, note 4, to
U ` the effect that the bankrupt court will not interfere where no advan-
tage can result to the bankrupt’s estate, gives, in my judgment, the
proper rule to follow in cases like the one under consideration.
The argument that unless the bankrupt court protects property after
it has passed out of the bankruptcy the power of the court and the
efficiency of the law will be impaired, if not brought into contempt,
is not very forcible. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States, under the laws of the United States, is well grounded, and,
wherever necessary, will be vindicated; and for that very reason it
behooves the said courts and the judges thereof to exercise care and
Gomity when called upon to interfere with the proceedings in state
courts, which courts are presumed to know and apply all the laws of
the country with learning and justice.
_ There is another view of this case which is equally against the "
plaintiff in this suit. The district court has no jurisdiction, exclu-
sive or otherwise, to interfere, under the bankrupt law, except
with such matters and things, liens and otherwise, as pertain to the
assets of the bank1·upt’s estate. Now, when property of the bank-
rupt has been brought into the bankrupt court, sold under the decree
of the court, the proceeds received by the assignee, and the sale rati-
ned by the court, that property has ceased to be assets of the bank-