Head

(after stating the facts as above). Plaintiffs in error contend that the District Court made no decision upon the question of title and was without pow- • er to make such determination in the present action; that the trustee could not maintain this action; that it was error for the court to refuse to permit defendants below to prove ownership of the property and to direct a verdict in favor of plaintiff below.

In our opinion the court by its order of confirmation of the master’s report in the ancillary bankruptcy proceedings adjudged that the bankrupt estate had title to the property in question, and that the claimants thereto, who were these plaintiffs in error, did not hold the property by right or assertion of right made in good faith. No steps to review that order in the summary proceedings were taken by Head and others affected. There was a challenge by the respondents in the ancillary proceedings to the jurisdiction, but that step did not oust the court of jurisdiction, or do more than to impose upon it the duty to cite claimants ho show cause why they should not yield possession of the property to the trustee, and to inquire whether the claim of title was genuine and…

(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. My views regarding the *292 main point involved in the ease, were expressed in the opinion of this court in the case of Cooney v. Collins et al., 176 F. 189 , 99 C. C. A. 543 , and in my dissenting opinions in the case of In re Eilers Music House (C. C. A.) 270 F. 915, 925 , and in the case of the same title reported in (C. C. A.) 274 F. 330, 335 ; to which views I still adhere.