592 FEDBBAIi BSFOBTEB. �not affeot any case or prooeeding in bankraptcy commenced" before its passage, "or any pains, penalties, or forfeitures incurred under the said act, but every such prooeeding may be continued to its final consummation in like manner as if this act had not been passed." It cannot properly be said that the prooeeding in bankruptcy bas been olosed, or bas reached its final consummation, although the bankrupt bas been discharged, and no assets remain to be distributed among creditors, when a deed given under the circumstances in question remains outstanding, illegal, unauthorized, or fraud- ulent, and when, as a consequence of setting it aside, what was conveyed by it, and seems to be so valuable a possession to the party who holds it, will then remain in the hands of the court, to be disposed of properly by another deed. �Nor oan it be doubted that the power to order the deed to be surrendered by the holder, and then to be oancelled, ex- ista equally with the power to set aside the deed. The power as against the holder arises ont of the faots of the case, and out of the jurisdiction obtained over his person by the proper service of process on him under the petition, and, if the frame of the petition extenda to it, the court, whioh has authority to vacate the unlawful, collusive, and fraudulent act and deed, has authority, on the same basas, to enforce the delivery up of the deed to the court by the holder. �The jurisdiction in a similar case was exeroised by the district court for this district in 1862, under the bankruptcy act of 1841, In re Gonant. In 1858, the officiai assignee in bankruptcy of Conant conveyed certain land in Illinois to one Brown, who conveyed it to one Jones. One Taggard had bought the same land in 18e3, and obtained a deed of it, and had gone into possession of it, and held it until he died, in 1851. His heirs, having sued Jones in trespass, in Illinois, to establish their title to said land, petitioned the district court, in 1861, for relief against the deed of the assignee. The assignee and Brown and Jones were cited to answer. The court found that it had been induoed to order the sale by the assignee under the impression on the part of the court that the land was without value, and that the sale was to be ��� �
