IN EE 8TAIB. 211 �statute? Clearly, on January 5, 1875, when her estate was assigned in bankruptcy, the title to these stocks was in Mary Eogers. Thej' had been assigned to her previously upon the books of the companies, and there stood in her name unquestionably. She then held and claimed these stocka adversely to the petitioner. It is equally clear that on said date, by Tirtue of the assignment in bankruptcy, her title passed to and vested in her assignees. No formai transfer to them upon the books of the companies (as is contended by counsel) was necessary to complete the title of the assignees. From that time on the assignees in bankruptcy held these stocks adversely to ail the world. Now, more than two yeara elapsed after the assignment before the present petition was filed, and the door to litigation touching these stocks was then closed. Bailey T. Glover, 21 Wall. 3e7. �The views above expressed make it unnecessary for me to examine the merits of this controversy, or pass upon the exceptions to the register's report upon that branch of the case. The order I now make is based exclusively upon the two above-stated grounds, viz. : (1) The controversy is not determinable in a summary proceeding like the present ; and (2) that the petitioner's claim is barred by section 5067 of the Eevised Statutes. �And now, to-wit, July 9, 1880, the exceptions to the regis- ter's report in this matter are overruled, and the original and Bupplemental petitions of Samuel Rea, administrator cum testamento annexa of William A. Rogers, deoeased, filed re- spectively January 19, 1877, and January 26, 1878, are dis- missed. ����
