114 FEDERAL REPORTER. �as before, and no interposition through this court would make his liability any greater or different. �And if the process of the state court would have any va- lidity or effect in attaching the dividend, there is another reason why they should not be proceeded against in this man- ner here. The U. S. Eev. St. § 720, provide that writs of injunction shall not be granted by any United States courts to restrain proceedings of a state court, except where author- ized by law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy. The ex- press authority to restrain such proceedings in the bankrupt law extends only to suits against the bankrupt himself . U. S. Eev. St. § 5106. The implied authority would extend only to proceedings to realize the assets and bring them into the custody of the bankruptcy court. Id. § 4972. �This dividend is a part of the bankrupt estate of Union Adams, but this suit has no reference to it as such, but only as a part of the property of Alden Adams. Peck v. Jennes, 7 How. 612. It is argued for the orator that the jurisdiction given to the circuit court in bankruptcy matters warrants pro- ceeding in this manner against this fund. This jurisdiction is given by sections 4979 and 4986, Eev. St. The provisions of the former section evidently relate to actions for the re- covery, defence or asceitainment of the estate of the bank- rupt for his creditors. Lathrop v. Drake, 91 U. S. 516; Bur- bank v. Bigelow, 92 U. S. 179; and thoseof the latter section to the review of decisions upon questions that have arisen in the course of the proceedings in the district court. In re Alexander, 3 Nat. Bank Eeg. 6, and 8 Am. Law Eeg. 423; ^ Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65. This is not a case of either class, as is apparent from the reasons before stated, and this court has not any fund as such before it, or in custody, as it would have if it were administering upon the bankrupt estate, nor on account of any other proceedings of its own, as the court in Burbank v. Bigelow had, by the appointmeut of a re- eeiver. �Still the parties are residents of different states, and the amount in controversy is more than $500, so that this court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the cause of action, if ��� �
