IN BE BEIGHT. 491 �ment cases. These latter cases, not having been removed to this court, remain, with all their incidents, in the hands of the state court. We have no authority to make any decree disposing of prop- erty which is within the oontrol of another court of co-ordinate juris- diction. The state and federal courts of this country, sitting as they do in the same localitips, and exercising a concurrent jurisdietion over many subjects, have great reason to observe with care the well-setcled raie that the court which first gets possession of the subject-matter of a controversy must keep it until the controversy is decided, unless deprived of it by superior authority. In this case there will be a decree setting aside the judgment mentioned in the bill, but no order for the distribution of the fund in the hands of the sheriff. Application for such an order must be made to the state court. ���In re Bright, Bankrupt.* [Distriet Court, E. D. Penna^lvania. Kovember 11, 1881.) �1. BABKBUPICY— DiSCHAKGB— AsSHaST FrAUDTOBINTLT PrOCURED — ESTOPPEL. �A crediter, whose assent to the "bankrupt's discharge was procured by the promise of a pecuniary consideration, is estopped from afterwards setting up the fraud as a ground of objection to thc discharge ; but other creditors, upon leaming of the fraud, may object to the discharge upon that ground. �Motion for Discharge. �The register, to whom was referred the specifications against dis- charge, reported the testimony, the material parts of which are re- ferred to in the opinion, and recommended the discharge of the bank- rupt. �A. P. Spinncy, for bankrupt. �Benj. H. Haines and /. M. Washburne, for creditors. �Butler, D. J. The specification of objection that Mr. West's assent to the discharge was procured by the bankrupt, or by Mr. Torry for him, by means of a pecuniary consideration, is fully sus- tained by the proofs. Mr. West, when his assent was applied for, demanded $1,000, which the bankrupt declared himself unable to furnish. Mr. West pointed to the judgments held by Mr. Torry, as a means of securing it. These judgments, which had been entered in Mifflin county as well as in Schuylkill, had simultaneously been sued out in both places; and while it seems that the entire amount due was realized in Schuylkill, $1,000, or nearly so, were collected, and still �♦Reported by Albert B. Guilbert, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �
