Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/813

ADAM3 V. TERRELIi. 799 �By article 1371, Paschal's Digest of the Laws of Texas; it is provided that "any person capable of making a will may bo provide, by his or her will, that no other action shall be had in the county court in relation to the settlement of his or her estate than the probating and sequestration of his or her ■will, and the return of an inventory of the estate ; and in ail Buch cases any person having a claim or debt against said estate may enforce the payment of the same by suit against the executor of said will ; and when judgment is recovered the execution shall ran against the estate of such testator in the hands of such executor." �The same article provided that such executor might be required by the probate court to give bond, upon the petition of creditors or other persons interested in the estate, on making it appear that the executor was wasting the estate. It was under these provisions of the law that the judgments above mentioned were recovered against the executors by the cred- itors of J. Ulrich & Co., and that the executora were required, as above mentioned, to give bond. �Upon this statement of facts the plaintiffs, hoirs at law of Jones, brought this suit to recover the lands bought by the defendant, Terrell, and held by him. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the limitation of two years prescribed by section 2 of the bankrupt act (Eev. St. § 5057) against suits between an assignee in bankruptcy and a person claim- ing an adverse interest touching any property or rights of prop- erty transferable to or vested in such assignees. �A. H. Willie and C. L. Wurzhacli, for plaintiffs. �Jacob Waelder and Columhus Upson, for defendant. �Woods, C. J. Upon the agreed facts the plaintiffs are enti- tled to a finding and judgment in their favor, unless their title bas been divested by the proceedings in the bankruptcy, and the sale and deed made by the assignee in bankruptcy to the defendant. It is insisted by the plaintiffs that the bank- ruptcy court had jurisdiction neither of the persons of the bankrupts nor of the subject-matter of the bankruptcy. The defendant claims that the bankrupt court* having exclusive jurisdiction of the snbject of bankruptcies, and having neces- ����