the land subject only to be defeated by an event that has not happened, and we see as little ground for doubting that he disposed of it as there is for denying that he had it. The residuary clause is in the usual form, "All the rest and residue of my estate, real, personal and mixed, which I now possess or which may hereafter be acquired by me"; amply sufficient to carry the equitable estate. No doubt Mayer thought that the Chevy Chase property would go another way, but it manifestly was not certain, and moreover one of the objects of a residuary clause is to gather up unremembered as well as uncertain rights.

Decree affirmed.

ACME HARVESTER COMPANY v. BEEKMAN LUMBER COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

No. 9. Argued April 25, 1911.-Decided December 18, 1911.

The denial of a right claimed under the judgment of a Federal court lays the foundation for a review in this court, and where the state court proceeds to judgment on the ground that bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant had been concluded by denial of adjudication and the injunction against suits in the state court thereby dissolved this court has jurisdiction.

A finding by the state court that bankruptcy proceedings had been concluded by denial of adjudication does not conclude this court on writ of error to review the judgment of the state court. Where the state court bases its jurisdiction entirely on the construction given a Federal statute by it adversely to contention of plaintiff in error, this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment. Rector v. Bank, 200 U. S. 405.

The filing of a petition in bankruptcy is a caveat to all the world, and, in effect, an attachment and injunction. Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1, 14.

It is the duty of the bankruptcy court to promptly determine the ques

tion of adjudication and to proceed with the selection of a trustee and administration of the estate; and it cannot, even if for the benefit of creditors, deny an adjudication and hold jurisdiction over the estate for the purpose of allowing some of the creditors to effect a reorganization and distribution of the property.

With the denial of adjudication the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court ends and the property becomes subject to ordinary methods and jurisdiction of courts of competent jurisdiction.

There is no power in the District Court to issue an ex parte injunction, without notice or service of process, attempting to restrain a creditor suing in a State outside the jurisdiction of the District Court. Ancillary jurisdiction in aid of the jurisdiction of the District Court exists under the act of June 25, 1910, c. 412, 36 Stat. 838. Re Wood & Henderson, 210 U. S. 246, distinguished.

215 Missouri, 221, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Alexander New and Mr. Edwin A. Krauthoff, with whom Mr. Arthur Miller was on the brief, for plaintiff in error, submitted.

Mr. Hannis Taylor for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.1

This case is here upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. The facts stated in the record disclose that on October 19, 1903, an agreement was formulated, having for its purpose the placing of the affairs of the Acme Harvester Company, plaintiff in error, in the hands of a committee of creditors. With this purpose in view an agreement for the signature of the creditors was circulated, naming a committee of five and calling upon the stockholders of the Acme Harvester Company to deposit their shares with the committee, the directors and officers of the company to resign their respective

'Announced by Mr. Chief Justice White in the absence of Mr. Justice Day.

offices, and the committee to have power to elect a board of directors, who should act until the debts of the company were paid in full, and, when so paid, the shares of stock to be redelivered to the owners. In the circular accompanying the agreement for the signature of the creditors it was set forth that the affairs of the company were in such shape that, if kept a going concern, the debts could be paid, and deprecating a resort to legal proceedings in court.

On October 22, 1903, certain creditors filed a petition in involuntary bankruptcy against the Acme Harvester Company in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to have the company adjudicated a bankrupt, charging that it was insolvent and had made certain preferential transfers of property. On October 24, 1903, the creditors' committee issued a circular in which they recited that one-half the creditors in number and two-thirds in amount had already signed the creditors' agreement; that a petition in bankruptcy had been filed by a law firm claiming to represent three claims, for the purpose of throwing the company into bankruptcy; that one of the creditors had already withdrawn from the proceedings, and setting forth that the success of such proceedings would wreck the company, destroy its business, and sacrifice the value of its assets. The committee added an expression of its confidence that the court would deny an application for a receiver, and leave the business in the hands of the creditors. On October 26, 1903, the creditors' committee issued another circular, in which it was said that the United States District Court in Chicago had refused to appoint a receiver, and in so doing the judge had said:

"This estate is a very large one, and is in the hands of a committee of reputable creditors. It is my judgment that the creditors ought to manage and control the estate. The creditors can produce results much better than any

receiver in handling a large manufacturing concern like the Acme Harvester Company."

The circular further said that the court had referred the matter to the referee in bankruptcy to inquire into the truth of the allegations of the petition, and to ascertain whether the petitioning creditors had any standing or right to file the petition, adding that there was really only one creditor left in the bankruptcy proceeding. On November 2, 1903, a circular was issued in which it was stated that an overwhelming majority of the creditors had signified their approval of the plan, and had executed and forwarded the agreement to the creditors' committee. On December 2, 1903, the Acme Harvester Company, by its vice-president, wrote to the Beekman Lumber Company, calling attention to the fact that the Lumber Company had not yet signed the creditors' agreement, and saying:

"You may not be aware that United States Judge Kohlsaat has stopped the matter of any one bringing suit against this company or endeavoring to throw it into bankruptcy, he having decided that we are solvent and that the only reasonable and fair way to handle the business, paying its debts, etc., is through the medium of the credit committee selected by our heaviest creditors. This being the case the only basis on which your claim will receive recognition is by joining with the balance of our creditors, signing the agreement, thus putting yourself on record that you are a creditor and are entitled to such dividends as from time to time the committee might declare."

The Beekman Lumber Company, it appears, did not sign the creditors' agreement, nor, so far as the record discloses, prove its claim in bankruptcy, and on December 7, 1903, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, for the purpose of recovering a judgment against the Acme Harvester Company upon an ac

count for lumber sold and delivered prior to the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy. No trustee having been selected in the bankruptcy proceedings, the Acme Harvester Company appeared in the state court to file a motion to stay the proceedings, setting up the pending proceedings in bankruptcy. This motion was sustained on January 11, 1904. On May 14, 1904, motion to stay was overruled, and the former order set aside. On October 3, 1904, a petition was filed in the District Court of the United States at Chicago, where the bankruptcy proceedings were pending, for an injunction against the Beekman Lumber Company to restrain it from further pursuing its action in the state court. An injunction was granted, without notice to the Beekman Lumber Company, on ex parte hearing the same day. From reports in the record it appears that the creditors' committee took charge of the company's property, and, as such committee, made reports to the United States District judge at Chicago of the doings of the committee in the management of the property, purchases, sales, etc. The creditors' committee also issued a statement to the creditors, showing the results of the business, enclosing copies of the reports made to the Federal District Court, and recommending a reorganization of the company on the basis of stock issued to creditors, at par, for their claims, and fifty cents on the dollar to creditors who did not go into the reorganization. A circular letter, issued by the committee on April 1, 1905, states that two-thirds of the creditors had already been heard from, about eighty per cent (80%) of them desired stock, and the rest preferred fifty per cent (50%) in cash.

On October 12, 1904, the Acme Harvester Company answered in the state court, setting up the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding and the issuing of the injunction in the District Court of Chicago. Replication was filed by the plaintiff, and, upon trial, a judgment on the