Si4 .DJBOBBi;Ii aKPOBTBB; �an iattachmekt of his propertj? iii Ehode Island. The defend- ant pleaded tathe juri^diciioà that he waa not an inhabitant of nor, found in Bhode Island at the time'of the pretended servingiOf the: writ. The eorirt," in announcing its decision, ftllude to . the settled consttuotiûni of the eleventh section of the judi<siary aet, requii:ing!is,r^s6n(icie ; on the peraon of the d'efesadant within the district, aaidlehàt no jurisdiction can be ftcquired by attaching pfopert|rijof a non-resident defendant ■punsnaati to a stafotattaohment rlawi'andieay: "It is insiatedy hbw«,yer,;for the/plaintiffs ihd* ihm& rulings were had in cas©^ aseisiHg where the Ijurisjlictioln depiended on eitizenship; where, aa .hsr@ti the suit is f ounded Km , an àct of congres» ; conf erring jarisdictsbn on the eircuife courts lôf the ¥nited:Btates in saits feyànyentors against those.wito infringe their letters patent^ ineluding ,all «asies both at law^and iii eqnity arising under the patent la^.iwithout *eg^rd to eitizenship of . the parties qr the amount'in controYersy,-and therefore the eleTenth section of the.judiciary act did not apply," r But the court held that that section "applied in its'ilerms to ail civil suite; it mafces; no exception, nôr can the. courts make any." '. "The judicial power extends'to aHi cases in law and equity arising undei the constitution and laws of the United States, ana it is pur&uant to this clause of the constitution that the TJnited States courtsi are veated with- power to- execute th© laws respectingiaventors and patented inventions ; but where euits are tO: be 'brought isleft to^he general law, to-wit, to the eleventh section of the judiciary act, which requires Per- sonal service of process within'the district where the suit is brought, if the defendant be an inhabitant of another state." The argument, then, which would take this case out of the operation of section 739^ beeause jurisdiction of bankruptcyi matters is conferred.withoul regard to the eitizenship or res- idance of the parties, is not a valid one. That was precisely the argument in the case last cited. Jurisdiction of a suit byian asbigneeiin another .distiiof exiists urider the bankrUpt law, but how 'service, of "pioeess shall be made is still regn- lated by the former la/w. That the 'defendant, Lewis, ha» been guilty lof ; the grosseat frauds in connection with the' ����
