Opinion of the Court.

Co. to show cause why all further action under the writ of fi. fa. should not be stayed and set aside, which rule was made absolute; and from that order an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. There Nimick & Co. urged that by their diligence they had discovered the property seized by them, and that Ingram having fraudulently attempted to screen the property, it was legally incompetent for him to take any steps in relation to it to affect their rights; but the Supreme Court said:

"What these rights are it is not necessary for us to decide, ... being satisfied, as we are, that they can only be determined contradictorily with the mass of the insolvent's creditors, before the court seized of the concurso, as the whole proceedings in the suit pending originally in the Fourth District Court were . . properly ordered to be cumulated with the insolvent proceedings in the Fifth District Court.

"Any informality in the proceedings, when questioned, must be by direct action. No creditor will be permitted to disregard and treat as an absolute nullity a judgment accepting a surrender made by his debtor, and granting a stay of proceedings.

"The acceptance for the creditors by the court of the ceded estate, vests in them all the rights and property of the insolvent, whether placed on the schedule or not; and the syndic may sue to recover them.

"But any creditor may show, provided it be contradictorily with the mass of the creditors, or their legal representative, that any particular object or fund is not embraced in the surrendered estate, but is subject exclusively to his individual claim. And this is the remedy of the plaintiffs, if any they have."

Nimick v. Ingram is quoted from and approved in Tua v. Carriere, 117 U. S. 201, 207.

In the case in hand, the order of the court in insolvency stayed all judicial proceedings against the insolvent and his property, and, by the acceptance of the cession, passed all the insolvent's assets to the syndic for the benefit of creditors; but its operation was not confined to the property specifically named, nor did the acceptance by the creditors have that effect.

Opinion of the Court.

If property be omitted by mistake or with fraudulent intention, it is the duty of the syndic to have the schedule amended so as to include it, and to take possession and administer upon it, Chaffe v. Scheen, 34 La. Ann. 686; and it is the duty of the creditors to bring it to his attention, that he may do so. The evidence offered by appellants that Green did not intend to include this property because advised by counsel that it was not liable for his debts was properly excluded, as his intention could not control the operation of the law, or defeat the rights of his creditors.

The property was named in the schedule as belonging to the wife individually and therefore not claimed by the debtor; but any creditor, by inquiry, could have ascertained the circumstances and been informed of its liability under the law. There is nothing to impugn the good faith of the syndic; and if there were, he could have been compelled to act and was liable to removal. Rev. Stats. La. § 1814. Nor was there any element of estoppel involved in the action of the creditors who signed the consents to Green's discharge. The surrender which they accepted covered all the insolvent's assets, and even if they were laboring under the erroneous belief that this particular property was not subject to their claims, they would be entitled, so far as appears from this record, to share in its proceeds when the mistake was discovered. No other creditor was misled to his injury by their action, and no adjudication foreclosed their rights.

And in addition to this, as Geilinger & Blum and the bank in Winterthur recovered their judgments after the insolvency proceedings were commenced and the surrender made by Green, if they wished to attack those proceedings they should have done so, as we have seen, "contradictorily with the mass of the insolvent's creditors, before the court seized of the concurso."

It is said, however, that insolvency proceedings and laws can have no extra-territorial effect, and do not affect or control non-resident creditors, unless they voluntarily make themselves parties to the proceedings.

And it is argued that as these were foreign creditors, who

Opinion of the Court.

had not made themselves such parties, and had sought relief through the United States Circuit Court, that placed them on different ground as to the property of an insolvent from that occupied by the creditors of his domicil. But so far as the property of an insolvent is concerned in the jurisdiction within which proceedings against him are taken, its destination is fixed (existing priorities being of course respected) by the laws of that jurisdiction. The insolvency decree is in the nature of an execution, and though it cannot by its own force attach assets in another State, it takes the assets within its own. And, while non-resident creditors are entitled to come in pari passu with domestic, if they do not do so they cannot participate in the distribution.

By the insolvency proceedings Green's assets were placed in gremio legis, and could not be seized by process from another court. Peale v. Phipps, 14 How. 368, 375; Tua v. Carriere, 117 U. S. 201, 208. What the rights of the appellants might be if they declined to prove their claims or intervene in the state court, upon the termination of the administration there, it is not necessary to consider. Williams v. Benedict, 8 How.

107, 112; Union Bank v. Jolly's Administrators, 18 How. 503; Green's Administratrix v. Creighton, 23 How. 90, 107. The conclusion that under the particular circumstances disclosed, this property formed part of the assets belonging to an administration pending when the writs of fi. fa. were issued, determines the invalidity of the seizure under them. Rio Grande Railroad Company v. Gomila, 132 U. S. 478.

The judgment of the Circuit Court released the property upon condition that the costs in the making of the seizure be paid by the syndic, and that he present and file an order from the State District Court authorizing and directing him to take possession of the property and administer the same as part of the insolvent estate of Green. This was an eminently judicious and proper order apparently effectual to secure the appropriation of the property to the claims to which it was subject, while these judgment creditors were absolved from the expense incurred in emphasizing the fact of its liability.

We see no error in the record and the judgment is therefore Affirmed.

VOL. CXXXIII—17

Statement of the Case.

GEOFROY v. RIGGS.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 1431. Submitted December 23, 1889.- Decided February 3, 1890.

A citizen of France can take land in the District of Columbia by descent from a citizen of the United States.

The treaty power of the United States extends to the protection to be afforded to citizens of a foreign country owning property in this country and to the manner in which that property may be transferred, devised or inherited.

The District of Columbia, as a political community, is one of "the States of the Union," within the meaning of that term as used in article 7 of the Consular Convention of February 23, 1853, with France. Article 7 of the Convention with France of September 30, 1800, construed. Article 7 of the Consular Convention with France of February 23, 1853, construed.

IN EQUITY. friendly suit." it was dismissed.

The bill alleged that, the suit was "a purely The defendants demurred to the bill, and The complainants appealed. The court stated the case as follows:

On the 19th day of January, 1888, T. Lawrason Riggs, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Columbia, died at Washington, intestate, seized in fee of real estate of great value in the District. The complainants are citizens and residents of France and nephews of the deceased. On the 12th of March, 1872, the sister of the deceased, then named Kate S. Riggs, intermarried with Louis de Geofroy, of France. She was at the time a resident of the District of Columbia and a citizen of the United States. He was then and always has been a citizen of France. The complainants are the children of this marriage, and are infants now residing with their father in France. One of them was born July 14, 1873, at Pekin, in China, whilst his father was the French minister plenipotentiary to that country, and was there only as such minister. The other was born October 18, 1875, at Cannes, in France. Their mother, who was a sister of all the defendants except Medora, wife of the defendant E. Francis Riggs, died February 7, 1881. The deceased, T. Lawrason

Argument for Appellees.

Riggs, left one brother, E. Francis Riggs, and three sisters, Alice L. Riggs, Jane A. Riggs and Cecilia Howard, surviving him, but no descendants of any deceased brother or deceased sister, except the complainants.

The defendants, with the exception of Cecilia Howard, are, and always have been, citizens of the United States and residents of the District of Columbia. Cecilia Howard, in 1867, intermarried with Henry Howard, a British subject, and since that time has resided with him in England.

The real property described in the bill of complaint cannot be divided without actual loss and injury, and the interest of the complainants, if they have any, as well as of the defendants, in the property, would be promoted by its sale and a division of the proceeds.

To the bill of complaint setting up these facts and praying a sale of the premises described and a division of the proceeds among the parties to the suit according to their respective rights and interests, the defendants demurred, on the ground that the complainants were incapable of inheriting from their uncle any interest in the real estate. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. From the decree the case is brought to this court on appeal.

Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for appellants.

Mr. John Selden for appellees.

As the Treaty of Amity and Commerce concluded between the Thirteen United States of North America and France, on February 6, 1778, was annulled by act of Congress, July 1, 1798, 1 Stat. 578, c. 67, and as the Convention of Peace, Commerce and Navigation concluded between the United States and France, on September 30, 1800, expired by its own limitation, eight years afterwards, in pursuance of an additional article, (Pub. Treaties, ed. 1875, p. 232,) inserted by the Senate, on February 4, 1801: Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 272, 277; Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181, 189; Buchanan v. Deshon, 1 Har. & G. 280; the single treaty stipulation