466 FEDERAL REPORTEil. �appear ail the averments neeessary to give this court juris- diction, and, aocordingly, the petitioner was adjudged a bank- rupt May 2, 1878. In his schedule of creditors, which con- tains the names of 35 in ail, the name of Wm. T. Carter appears as a creditor, to the amount of $86,390.32, and his place of residence is there stated to be Philadelphia, Pa. �The marshal's return to the warrant in bankruptcy shows due service upon Carter of notice of the adjudication, and that the first meeting of creditors to prove their debts and choose an assignee was ealled for June 19, 1878, at Williamsport. �The creditors having elected H. H. McCormick assignee, an assignment of the bankrupt's estate was executed to him June 22, 1878. On January 30, 1880, upon the bankrupt's petition for his discharge, the usual order was made referring the case to Eegister Smith, and fixing the hearing to show cause, etc., for February 28, 1880. At this meeting, Mr. Carter's counsel, George T. Bispham, Esq., appeared before the register and demanded permission to examine the bank- rupt, who was also present. The bankrupt declining to sub- mit to such examination, the register, at the request of Mr. Bispham, continued the meeting until March 30, 1880. Mr. Carter has not proved his debt against the estate of the bank- rupt. �The facts above recited are ail matters of record, and a statement of them is neeessary to indicate the present status of the case, and to show the propriety of the action of the court in respect to Mr. Carter's petition. �As already observed, upon the face of Groome's petition this court had undoubted jurisdiction of the case. The peti- tion was filed so long ago as April 27, 1878; the adjudication was made five days later, and the case proceeded in its regu- lar course for a period of more than one year and nlne months before the jurisdiction of the court was ealled in ques- tion. At this late day, and at this stage of the proceedings, can William T. Carter raise the question of jurisdiction in this way, viz., by petition to annul the proceedings ab initio ? And does his petiton present such a case as requires the court ��� �
