In re Double Star Brick Co.

(after stating the facts as above). In view of the fact that the applicant has presented his claim and has thus submitted the same to the jurisdiction of this court, and the further fact of his long acquiescence, it is a grave question whether his application does not come too late, and he is not estopped to raise the objection upon which he relies. In re Ives (D. C.) 111 Fed. 497 ; also 113 Fed. 911 , 51 C. C. A. 541 ; In re Billings (D. C.) 145 Fed. 400 . At least the application should not be granted unless it is clear that there is a want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and I am not satisfied that such is the case. It is to be admitted that in the decisions cited by the applicant (Kaiser Land & Fruit Co. v. Curry, 155 Cal. 642 , 103 Pac. 341 ; Lewis v. Curry, 156 Cal. 99 , 103 Pac. 493 ; Lewis v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 101 , 103 Pac. 496 ; Alaska Salmon Co. v. Standard Box Co., 158 Cal. 578 , 112 Pac. 454 ) there are expressions strongly supporting the view that the forfeiture of the charter of a corporation under the act referred to operates to terminate its very existence, but it is to be borne in mind that no question like that here involved was under consideration.…