(after stating the facts as above). The bankrupt claims an exemption right in lot No. 43 in the sum of $2,500.

-The provisions of the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 546 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421]) applicable to this case are: Clause-11 of section 2, vesting courts of bankruptcy with jurisdiction “.to.determine all claims of bankrupts to their exemption.” Section 47, cl. 11, -makes it the duty of trustees to “set apart the bankrupt’s exemption's1 and report the items and estimated value thereof to the court as spon as practicable after their appointment.” Section 6 provides

Section 1 of the act (page 515) provides that the word “state” shall be construed as including the territories.

The law of the territory of Arizona in force at the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy was the “Act to regulate homesteads and exemptions,” approved March 21, 1907, to take effect May 1, 1907. Laws of Arizona, pp. 149 — 151, c. 79.

Sections 1, 2, and 13 of this act provide as follows:

When the bankrupt filed his homestead declaration with the county recorder on February 7, 3 908, the lot claimed as a homestead was under attachment in the suit of Pitt v. Forbes. Under section 13 of the territorial act of March 21, 1907, the declaration did not impair or in any way affect the attachment lien; that is to say, the homestead continued to be subject to this lien notwithstanding the declaration.

But, turning now to the bankruptcy act, we find that by the provisions of 67f:

It does not appear from the record that the attachment lien in this case was saved or preserved by any of the exemptions contained in the statute.

Section 1 of the territorial act of March 21, 1907, provides that the homestead “shall consist of a dwelling house in which the claimant *82 resides, and the land on which the same is situated; or of land that the claimant shall designate, providing the same is in one compact body.” The exemption in favor of the bankrupt may therefore be a dwelling house and the land on which it is situated, or real property providing it is in one compact body, and the value of the exemption in either case is not to exceed $2,500. The claimant of the homestead in this case did designate as his homestead lot 43 of the San Francisco town site, and this lot appears to be in one compact body. The trustee set it apart as required by clause 11 of section 47 of the bankruptcy act, and reported the fact to the court, together with the estimated value thereof; and this report was confirmed by the court. The attachment lien for $2,025.25, debt and costs $17.50, making a total lien of $2,042.75, covered all the bankrupt’s property, and was merged in a judgment for $2,240.66. The value of the bankrupt’s homestead exemption was under the territorial statute $2,500. The value of lot 43 as fixed by the sale was $4,100. The total estate converted into money was $9,131.54.

It is contended by the respondent that by section 70a of the bankruptcy act the title to the exempt property did not pass to the trustée, and that the lien of attachment was therefore not dissolved by section 67f. Section 70a provides in substance that the trustee of the estate of a bankrupt shall be vested by operation of law with the title of the bankrupt as of the date he was adjudged a bankrupt, except in so fa? as it is to property which is exempt. But the provision of section 67f is not limited in the annulment of liens to property that passes to the trustee. It is general and sweeping, and applies to liens acquired through legal proceedings against the bankrupt during the four-months period prior to his filing his petition in bankruptcy. Collier on Bankruptcy (8th Ed.) p. 161. Thre is some conflict in the authorities upon this question, but we think the interpretation placed upon the statute by Judge Jones in the case of In re Tune (D. C.) 115 Fed. 906 , 910, is correct. His discussion of that question is so full and satisfactory that we append his opinion on that point in full:

The rule stated in Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U. S. 294 , 23 Sup. Ct. 751, 47 L. Ed. 1061 , is that the title to the property of a bankrupt which is generally exempted by the law of the state in which the bankrupt resides remains in the bankrupt and does not pass to the trustee, but this was said with respect to an exemption covering all the property of the bankrupt, and cannot be applied to an exemption of a homestead or real estate of a specified value less than the actual value, where the trustee is directed by the statute to determine the claim of the bankrupt to the exemption and report its estimated value to the court. We think that, under the bankruptcy act, the homestead exemption in this case to the value of $2,500 continued in the bankrupt ; that respondent’s attachment lien was dissolved and bankruptcy proceedings were neccssaiy to determine the value of the property that the excess might be preserved for the benefit of the creditors.

The order of the District Court directing the trustee to pay to Julie II. Pitt, the attaching creditor, the sum of $2,500, the remainder in the hands of the trustee as the proceeds of the sale of the property attached, is reversed, with costs in favor of the petitioner, and the cause is remanded to further proceedings herein not inconsistent with this opinion.