Herman

(after stating the facts as above). The general principle that from the time of filing the petition in bankruptcy the estate is in custodia legis and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court (Acme Harvester Co. v. Beckman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 300 , 32 S. Ct. 96 , 56 L. Ed. 208 ) is in no way inconsistent with the exorcise of jurisdiction by a state court in a case instituted therein, where tho subject-matter is within the jurisdiction of the state court (Remington on Bankruptcy, §§ 2131, 2182). Here, by consent, the brokers, admitting that they had funds belonging to one or the other of the original litigants, paid the fund into the state court, there to be the subject of litigation. To determine the right to this fund Herman could proceed with his action in the state court, and the trustee, with leave of the bankruptcy court, by appearing and asserting a defense on the merits, acted in his efforts to preserve the fund as an asset of the estate of tho bankrupt. Heath v. Shaffer (D. C.) 93 F. 647 ; Linstroth Co. v. Ballew, 149 F. 960 , 79 C. C. A. 470 , 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1204; Remington on Bankruptcy, § 2047. The findings made by the state court do not appear,…