1. Bankruptcy—Right of Assign*» to Sub—Rkv. St. §§ 5046, 5047.

In 1880 S., as assignee in bankruptcy of the firm of S., C. & Co., and its . individual members, brought suit against one L. to have a judgment and execution obtained by L. against S., C. & Co. set aside as fraudulent, and to have L. declared a trustee of certain property of the firm, bought by him at sheriff’s sale, for the benefit of S., as assignee. In this suit a decree was entered granting the relief sought, and requiring L. to pay over to S., as assignee, a large amount of money. In a creditor’s suit subsequently brought by S. against L. upon this decree, one R. was appointed receiver of all L.’s property, and L. executed to him an assignment thereof, but never delivered to him any of his property, hut concealed the same. In 1895 S. brought a suit in California against L., together with D. and I., sundry insurance companies, and the P. Bank of Washington, alleging that L. had been conducting business, in the latter state, in the names of D. and I., with funds derived from the assets of S., C. & Co., fraudulently acquired by him; that all such business, its assets and profits, were in fact the property of L., except as against S. or R.; that the assets of such business had been insured by L. in the insurance companies which were made parties to the suit, and such companies, in consequence of the partial destruction of such assets by fire, had become liable to pay certain sums upon their policies, and were about to pay the same to L., or to D. and I., but that the same were rightfully the property of S., as assignee, or of It., as receiver, and that L., in the name of D. and I., was still carrying on business with funds which were rightfully the property of S. or of It. It wa.s also alleged that L. had pretended to assign the moneys payable under the insurance policies to the P. Bank, as security for an indebtedness which had been fully paid, with the intent to defraud S. and R., said bank having full knowledge of the facts; that, unless restrained by injunction, L., D., and I. would proceed again to secrete the property; that R. was, and long had been, out of the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore could not be made a party; and that the facts relating to the existence of the property in the hands of L. had only como to the knowledge of S. within three months before the commencement of the suit. The bill thereupon prayed for discovery from the defendants as to the property; for an injunction restraining the disposition thereof by L., D., or I.; that all such property he adjudged to belong to S., as assignee, or to R., as receiver; that the insurance companies he required to pay over the funds in their hands to S.; and that the assignment to the P. Bank be declared void. Held that, notwithstanding the appointment of R. as receiver in the creditors’ suit, and the assignment of the legal ■title of L.’s property to him, S., as assignee in bankruptcy, had a right to bring the present suit, for the protection and collection of the assets of the estate, by virtue of his equitable interest in such assets, and under Rev. St. §§ 5046, 5047.

8. Same — Jurisdiction of District Court-Saving Clausk of Act of Junk 7, 1878.

Held, further, that the United States district court, as a court of bankruptcy, had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, such suit being saved by the act of June 7, 187S (20 Stat. 99), repealing the bankrupt law.

8. Equity—Jurisdiction.

Held, further, that the complainant had not an adequate remedy at law, since the hill sought discovery, and also sought to impress a trust upon the property in the defendants’ hands.

A Same—Laches—Rev. St. § 5057.

Held, further, that the suit was not barred by the provision In Rev. St. I 5057, requiring suits between assignees in bankruptcy and persons claiming adverse interests in tbe estate to be brought within two years from the accruing of the cause of action, since it was alleged in the bill that the cause of action had been fraudulently concealed, and not discovered until within three months before the commencement of the suit.

5. Same—Parties—Assignee under Colorable Assignment.

Hold, further, that the fact that the P. Bank could not be made amenable to the process of the court, and had not voluntarily appeared, would not prevent the court from enjoining the disposition of the funds in question, and examining into the merits of the case, since it was alleged in the Dill that the assignment of the insurance moneys to it was merely color-able, and made, with knowledge on its part of the facts, for the purpose of defrauding- S., as assignee.

6. Same—Same—Attaching Creditor.

Meld, further, that an alleged creditor of L., who had attempted to attach the insurance moneys by the service of a notice of garnishment in Washington, was not a necessary paijty to the suit, it being alleged in the bill that such moneyd were in California, and payable there.