Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/525

BHArNWALD V. USWJS. 513 �done, witlnout.fiiidiiig him (he Ijeing q, rioii-resident) m this district. Therefore, it is furth«r argued from these premi- ises, therjB inust be the po#er' here claimed, that there may be no failure of juBtice-t— no failure to colleet ail the assets. �Counsel iave read much from that line of decisions which maintains the right of an assignee in bankruptey to sue in another than the district of his àppointment to recover debts or other property. ^-They find in the language neeà by thô courts in deciding those caseb, asthey think, support for their position. But, when these courts say the powers of the bank- ruptey courts are full and «onapiete for ail purposes of the aet, they mnst not be undetratood aà meaning that thô usual methods of acquiring jurisdiction need not be pursued. As- signees may find it necessary t6 sue in other districts for the recovery of assets. If so, the courts of those districts are open to them. Lathrop v. Drdke, 91 U. S. 516. �In this sense the courts of other districts are auxiliary, not in any sense implying power to carry ont and enforce the judgments and orders of one another except upon due process in the particular district. Nowhere do I find any intimation that it is not necessary to acquire junsdiction of persons and property by the same means employed in other cases. �In the present instance the district court of this district is open to the assignee for the collection of assets. The court has jurisdiction to hear and determine such a case; but be- fore it wUl have jurisdiction of this particular defendant he must be duly subpœnaed, unless, as contended, there is some- thing in the nature of this suit which renders it unnecessary. What is said in speaking of the general powers of the bank- ruptey .courts under the law to act at ail, must not be con- founded with and applied to their power to proceed in the particular instance. There may be a general jurisdiction to act, but no jurisdiction in the particular case owing to a failure to serve process. ;- �In Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208, it was sought to re- cover damages for an infringemeut of a patent by a suit com- meneed in the district of Ehode island against an inhabitant of Connecticut, and to obtain jurisdiction of the defendant by �v.5,no.6— 33 ����