
    WINCHESTER v. HEISKELL.
    ERRQB TO THÉ SUPREME OQURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.
    Submitted November 29, 1886.
    Decided December 13, 1886.
    A, béing defendant in a suit iu a State court to set aside a deed of real estate, employed B as attorney and counsel to defend the suit. While the suit ■ was pending A conveyed the tract to C as trustee to secure certain debts and liabilities of A. A became bankrupt, and D was appointed his assignee. After all these proceedings B succeeded iu obtaining a decree establishing Á’s title to the tract, which decree recited that the assignee in bankruptcy had become a party to the decree, and that the cause was remanded by consent for a report as to what wa's a reasonable counsel fee for B, which was declared to be a lien on the premises. After report the property was sold to B to satisfy that lien. Iu an action to enforce the lien under the trust deed to C as superior to that of B; Held, (1) That ■ 'the State court had jurisdiction so as to bind those who were parties to the suit and those whom the parties'in law represented; (2) that the assignee in bankruptcy having appeared in the State court and litigated his rights there, he .and those whom he represented were bound by the decree.
    The following is £he case as stated'by the court.
    The facts disclosed by the record are in brief as follows:
    Oh the 16th of February, 1869, Annie L. Jones and others, the widow and heirs-at-law of William E. Jones, deceased, filed their bill in the Chancery Court of Shelby County; Tennessee,. against D. H. Townsend to set aside and cancel a sheriff’s deed .purporting to convey certain lands to him, and to be quieted in'their title to the property. The defendants in error, Heis- ■ kell, Scott & Heiskell, were employed by Townsend to defend this, suit, which they did successfully, and at the December Term, 1816, obtained a decree of the Supreme Court of the' State establishing his title to the property. On the 18th of ■June, 1875, while this suit was1 pending, Townsend conveyed, the land in dispute to George W. Winchester, in trust, to secure ‘certain debts owing' by him, and for which Benjamin May was bound as indorser. On the 30th of November, 1875, Townsend filed Ms petition in bankruptcy; and on the 12th of January, 1816,. T. P. Winchester Avas duly appointed his assignee. •
    In the decree of the Supreme Court establishing the title of Townsend to the land appears the following:
    “And it being suggested to the court that, pending the proceeding in this court, the title of the said ToAvnsend has been assigned to Thomas S. Winchester, assignee in- bankruptcy, it is, Avith the consent of the said ToAAmsend by his counsel, or- ' dered that the said Winchester be made a party to this decree, and, by consent, this cause is remanded to the Chancery Court - of Shelby County to take ... an account and make report of the reasonable counsel-fee Oj. the counsel, Heiskell, Scott & Heiskell, for wMch a lien is hereby declared on the premises in controversy, the said Winchester asking that, 'the account be taken bekyw.”
    Under this order the cause was remanded, the account taken in the Chancery Court, the amount due ascertained, the lien declared, and the property sold to Heiskell, Scott & Heiskell for its satisfaction.
    ' - On the 12th of February, 1880, the present appellants filed ■this bill in the Chancery Court of Shelby County against Heis-kell, Scott & Heiskell to enforce the hen of the deed of trust executed by Townsend to George W. Winchester, trustee,' claiming that their title under this deed is superior to that of the defendants under their purchase at the sale which had been ordered in the former case. In their bill they allege that they are not bound by the decree in.the original suit, because' “ neither they nor the interest in said land that they represented Avere before the court Avhen said decree was pronounced, and they 'had no representative before said court. The suit Avas not revived or reinstated in their names or in the name of the trustee after Townsend’s bankruptcy and the assignment, of his assets ’ in bankruptcy.” TMs is the substance of the allegations of the bill on.this branch of the case. The hearing was originally had before a commission of referees appointed under a statute of Tennessee, and in their report it is said, among other things: “This proceeding in the Chancery Court, on the reference as to the amount of the fee, &c., is not such a matter in bankruptcy as is contemplated by§ 711 of the Ke-' vised Statutes of the United States, 1874, especially under the’ circumstances of this case.” The report of the referees was confirmed by the Supreme Court. ■ In its first decision no reference was made to the question of the jurisdiction o.f the' State court in the original suit to ¿djudicate as to the lien for fees, in view of the provisions of § 711 of.the Revised Statutes;, ■but, on a petition for rehearing and a suggestion of this omission, the decree was modified as follows:
    ' • “ The court being of the opinion that this court had jurisdiction in the case of Aovnie I. Jones v. D. IT. Tovmsend, mentioned and set forth in the iecord, to declare the attorneys’ hen in favor of the defendants in this case on the tract of land described in the pleadings, and that the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tenn., had jurisdiction To enforce said lien on' said property by the proceedings, decrees, and sale, as shown in the record, notwithstanding the bankruptcy of D. II. Town-' send and the bankrupt proceedings in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee, as shown in the record, and notwithstanding the provisions of the 711th section of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and not- . withstanding the provisions of the sections of said Revised Statutes embraced in Title 61, ‘Bankruptcy,’ the court adjudges that the authority exercised by the State coufts in said proceedings is not repugnant to the said laws of the United States.. In construing said laws of 'the United States, the court is of the opinion that, under the circumstances of the case as shown by the'record, the said State courts had the jurisdiction to declare and enforce said hens on the land in question, and that under the said proceedings the defendants acquired a good and ■ valid title to the land,in,controversyj and that the. title is not and was not void and a cloud .on the 'complainants’ right and ■title, and the court doth so order and decree.”
    Upon this state of' facts the appellees moved, (1) to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction; or, (2) to affirm under Rulé 6, clause 5.
    
      Mr. Hewry Graft,. Mr. T. S'. Turley] and Mr, L. W. Humes for the motions.
    
      
      Mr. B. M. Estes opposing.
   MR. Chief Justice Waite,

after stating the.case, delivered the opinion of the court.

One of the questions presented by the bill was as to the binding effect of the decree in the original case upon the complainants in this suit. Objection was not made in the pleadings to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter • of the action on account of the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United. States, under § 711 of the Revised Statutes, of all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy,” but it clearly' ivas at the trial before the referees, and it - was directly presented to and decided' by the Supreme' Court. , An .immunity was claimed by the appellants under this statute -from the operation of the decree of the State court on their •rights, because, that statute made the jurisdiction of the courts. of the United- States exclusive in such cases. We thus have jurisdiction, but as-the decision of the State court upon this question was clearly right, we do not care to hear further argument. The assignee in bankruptcy appeared in the State court and litigated his rights there. This he had authority to do, and the judgment in such an action is binding on him. This we have many times decided. Mays v. Fritton, 20 Wall. 414; Doe v. Childress, 21 Wall. 642, 647; Scott v. Kelly, 22 Wall. 57; Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521; Burbank v. Bigelow, 92 U. S. 179, 182; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 737; McHenry v. La Société Francaise, 95 U. S. 58; Davis v. Friedlander, 104 U. S. 570. The question here is not whether that decree thus rendered binds these appellants, but whether the State court had jurisdiction so as to bind those who.weré parties to the suit, and those whom the parties in law- represented.

The motion to dismiss is denied, a/nd that to affvrm gremted.  