Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/475

r;î RE GROOME. 467 �to vaeate the adjudication, and make null and void everything that bas been done thereunder ? �The bankrupt's Bchedule of creditors and the marshars . return to the warrant in bankruptcy conclusively show that the bankrupt himself did ail that was incumbent on him to secure proper Bervice upon Carter of notice of the adjudica- tion. The petition of the latter simply alleges that "no such notice was received by him, nor, as far as be bas been able to learn, was any such mailed or otherwise sent to him." This can scarcely be considered a sufficient traverse of the mar- shal's return. But, however this may be, the petition does not aver that Carter did not in fact know of the adjudication. Corning into court at this late day to overturn this whole pro- ceeding, it was not sufficient for him, I think, to allege merely that he did not receive notice through the marshal. He should bave gone further and alleged (if the fact were so) that he bad no knowledge of the adjudication at or near the date thereof, and stated when be first acquired such knowl- edge. In the absence of a deniai by Carter of actual knowl- edge, I think it may fairly be imputed to him. �Now, in considering the application of the petitioning cred- itor in this case, it must be remembered that want of juris- diction is not apparent on this record, and that other parties besides the bankrupt and Carter are interested in the adju- dication which the latter seeks to annul. Under such cir- cumstances, it seems to me, a crediter who would contest the jurisdietion in the manner and to the extent now attempted must move with reasonable diligence, and after such a lapse of time as we bave here, and at the present stage of the case,, be wiU not be permitted to raise the question by an applica- tion to set aside the adjudication. This, I understand, was,. in effeet, decided InreLittle, 2 B. E. 294, and is sustainedby the rulings in Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. 198, and Phila-. W. & B. R. Co. V. Zidgley, 21 How. 202, where it was held that, if the court bas jurisdietion according to the face of the record, objection to the jurisdietion, on the ground of citizen- ship, cannot be raised at the trial on the merits after a plea ^' ^Vie peneral isçic. ��� �