ART. 47] OPERATION OF INSOLVENT LAW. 1225

A replication is not contemplated in insolvency proceedings. How issues
should be framed; duty of the court. Castelberg v. Wheeler, 68 Md. 273.

Operation of insolvent law.

The enactment of a bankruptcy law suspends a state insolvency law only
so far as the two conflict. The latter continues in-force as to any class of
persons exempted by the former. It is the exercise of the power of estab-
lishing a bankrupt law and not the existence of such power, which renders
the state law inoperative. It is the policy of this section to make farmers
subject to Its provisions. Old Town Bank v. McCormick, 96 Md. 349.

The fact that the grantee or party to whom money is paid has no knowl-
edge that the grantor is Insolvent, does not take the case out of the operation
of this section. Prayers correctly setting forth the facts requisite to bring
a case under this section. Willison v. Frostburg Bank, 80 Md. 212.

Corporations are not amenable to our insolvent system, though by article
23, section 377, of the code of 1904—see section 79 of the annotated code—
they are brought within the operation of a provision of that system. Mowen
v. Nitsch, 103 Md. 687.

This section and section 2 compared as to the persons to whom they are
applicable, and as to the necessity for a deed from the debtor to the prelim-
inary trustee. Clark v. Manko, 80 Md. 82.

Jurisdiction.

Insolvency Jurisdiction is limited, and the procedure must be pursued in
the manner prescribed; where the debtor is not summoned, the court is
without Jurisdiction. Whyte v. Betts Machine Co., 61 Md. 177; Paul v.
locust Point Co., 70 Md. 292.

If a case is within the Jurisdiction of the Insolvent court, the latter's Judg-
ment cannot be impeached collaterally in the absence of fraud. The Juris-
diction of the insolvent court does not depend upon the petitioner being
actually insolvent. State v. Culler, 18 Md. 432. And see Weaver v. Leiman,
52 Md. 714.

Generally.

The adjudication is in rem, and binds all persons, whether parties or not,
as to the particular matter decided. Brown v. Smart, 69 Md. 328 (affirmed
in 145 U. S. 457).

The right to issue an injunction is limited to the time and purpose speci-
fied in this section. No controversy as to ownership of property or claim
to it can be disposed of in the Insolvent court, but they are remitted to
other courts where a jury trial may be had. Paul v. Locust Point Co., 70
Md. 293.

Insolvency proceedings from the petition to the last order may be amended
in the discretion of the court. An amended petition held not to be an original
proceeding, and hence that the proceeding was begun within the requisite
period after the acts complained of. Griffee v. Mann, 62 Md. 254.

It is not necessary that the debts of the petitioning creditors shall have
matured before the petition is filed. Schiff v. Solomon, 57 Md. 583.

A creditor who claims a fund arising from the sale of the property of
insolvents, will not be allowed to impeach the adjudication. Gottschalk v.
Smith, 74 Md. 564.

The constitutional right of removal has no application to an Insolvency
proceeding or issues framed in pursuance thereof. Bel Air, etc., Club v.
State, 74 Md. 300; Trayhern v. Hamill, 53 Md. 90; Michael v. Schroeder, 4 H.
& J. 227.

Where before a petition under this section is filed the petitioning cred-
itors file their claims for their distributive shares under a deed for the
benefit of creditors, such action does not amount to an estoppel. So long as
the deed of trust stands, It is effectual. Castleberg v. Wheeler, 68 Md. 273.

The Insolvent law prior to the amendment which added the involuntary
feature, did not contemplate the insolvency of co-partnership or Joint debtors.
There Is nothing in this section to change the law in this respect. Gator v.
Martin, 57 Md. 401. See Pinckney v. Lanahan, 62 Md. 454; Schiff v. Solomon,
57 Md. 581. See also, section 28.