518 FEDERAL REPORTER. �But for that façt a suitatçlaw would lie against Lewis, with ,an attachment against this very prppçrty. As I now look at tMs case, stripped of its surroundings of bankruptcy and fraud in California., it becomes an attempt by an assignee to .avail himself of the extraordinary powers of a court of equity for the purpose ôf appropriating the general propertyof a defendant, in the first instance;^ to the payment of his debts, — a thing which, so far as I am informed, bas never been done. I regret that, moved by a desire to aid the creditors who hg,ye been defrauded by the bankrupts and this defendant, Harris Lewis, I have made an order, which, ppon fuU consideration, cannot stand. �Let an order be entered.vacating the order of November 22, 1880, appointing K. L. Shainwald receiver in this case, and alsQ dismissing the plaintifi's bill. ���In re Mahoney and Eiddle.* �{Dutriet Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. JanuàryW, 1881., �BaTTKBUPTCY— ApPOINTMENT OP ASSIGNEE— UKADMINISTBRED ASSETS �— DouBTFUL RiGHT OB' ASSIGNEE TO Rbcover.— Where, after the death of aa assignee in bankruptcy, evidence Of the existence of un- administered assets is produced, the court will aippoint a new assignee, notwithstanding that his right to recover such assets may be doubtful, depending upon seve'ral disputed questions of law and fact. �Same.— The flrm of A., B. & C. dissolved, C. becoming liquidating pairtner. A. flled a petition in bankruptcy in Pennsylvania under thebankrupt law of 1841. C. flubsequentjyfllefl a petition in Kew Orleans. C. 's assignee sold the flrm book,accounts. Before the dis- solution the flrm had commenced an attachment suit in Philadelphia against a debtor and Jiad summoiied à bàh^ as gariiishee. ihis stiit waa never tried and no prooeedings in it were had for 34 years, when A. 's assignee having died the firin creditorg filed a petition for the appointment of a new assignee to carry on the attachment suit. Ueld, ■ that the petition should be gràhted, aricl \hat the questions of law and ' fàct on *hich tho right of the assignee to redover woiild depend, could not properiy be Çonai4ered-upôn tbjs appldcatipa,' ., j �'In Bankriipte'yr" ■ ' ' ' ' ' ' ,. ' �♦iieported by Frank P, Prichard, Esq., of the PhUiidelpIiia b^r. ����
