206 FEDERAL REPORTKB. �It necessarily results from this that all proceedings in the state court, after a due demand for removal by either party, are cwamnon judice. Its jurisdiotion is lost.and no order by that court — I say it with great personal respect forthelearned judge who made the order in this case — can beinvoked as ground for an application to remand. The suggestion was made at the hearing that if I could not find grounds for remanding the case, on the proceedings or action of the state court, I could at least authorize the defendants in this court to withdraw the appearance heretofore entered in the Hudson circuit, and thus allow the outside creditors to corne in and share in the pro- ceeds of the attached property. But there are two difficulties in the way : the first is that all the presumptions in the case lead to the con- clusion that the appearance was authorized in efiect if not in express terms; the second is that the attaching creditors have acquired an exclusive lien upon the property under the attachment act of the state of New Jersey, of whieh this coi.rt bas no right, if it had the disposition to deprive them. �The provisions of sections 14, 35, 38, and 39 of the "Act for the relief of creditors against absconding and absent debtors," (Eev. St. N. J. 42,) show that when the defendant in attachment enters an appearance to the suit without the execution of the bond prescribed by the thirty-third section of the act, the property seisied by virtue of the wriii romains in the custody of the ofi&cer and under the control of the court, and is held for the satisfaction of the claims of the plain- tiff in attachment, and of such persons as, before the appearance, have entered rules in the minutes of the court to be admitted as creditors under such attachment. AU other creditors are then ex- cluded from participating in the proceeds of the res until the plain- tifif and such applying creditors are paid in full. �This may seem inequitable and unjust to other meritorious credit- ors, who have for any reasons refrained from becoming parties to the proceedings, but it is the reward which the law gives to the dili- gent. When the defendant corporation signed the petition for re- moval, and executed the bond, and gave instructions to the attorney to take the necessary steps to effect the removal of the suit, into this court, it was probably not aware of the legal consequences of the act, and had no thought of depriving other creditors, who had not become parties to the attachment proceedings, of sharing in the pro rata dis- tribution of the assets. In other words, a mistake in law was made ; but I do not understand that I have any power to corre et mistakes in law, if by so doing I take away from other innocent parties any ��� �
