CLAEK V. BWING. 91 �ihe concitigion that the construction of this atatute given by the supreme court of Massachusetts and the court of appeals of New York contains the better and sounder exposition of the scope and purpose of said amendment. I am, therefore, of opinion that it was not the intention of congress to divest the state courts of jurisdiction in plenary suits brought by assignees in bankruptcy for the purpose of collecting the assets of the bankrupt, and that it is not necessary, since said amendment, before an assignee in bankruptcy ean commence a suit in the state court, that he shall obtain the direction or leave of the bankrupt court so to do. �It f oUows necessarily from this conclusion that the suits in qi-sestion were lawf uUy and properly brought in the state court ; that the complainant bas had his day in that court ; that he bas appealed both to the law and equity side of that court for relief, and been denied the relief to which he asserts himself entitled, and I do not think that this court should now attempt to review the action of the state court in that behalf. In the chancery suit in the state court the complainant set forth at lengtb the nature of his defence and the reasons why he was onable to present the same to his suits at law. The learned judge of the state court, Mr. Justice Mulkey, in the opinion of the court affirming the judgment of the court below, says: "Assuming, as we must then, that the charges in the bill are true, it is quite manifest that the appellant had a good and meritorious defence to each of the actions in which these judgments were obtained. So far from appellant being in- debted to Arnold & Sisson, or their assignee, at the time these judgments were obtained, the bill clearly shows they were indebted to him to the amount of several hundred dollars. It follows, therefore, it would be inequitable and against con- science to enforce their payment ; but this alone, as we bave just seen, does not warrant a court of equity in interfering to prevent the consummation of such wrong," The court then goes into an analysis of the allegations in the bill, and deter- mines that the complainant and his attorney were guilty of such negligence in the conduct of the common-Iaw cases as to preclude him from inToking relief from the judgments in the ����
