after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The regularity of the proceedings of the state court' is not challenged. They were all subsequent to the proceedings in the. bankrupt court, and were not' commenced until after the title had passed away from the assignee in bankruptcy. The general jurisdiction of the state court is conceded. The purchaser, the plaintiff in error, was a party to that suit, and the claim of the plaintiff in error can only be sustained upon the theory that by reason of the bankrupt proceedings the state" court was prevented from taking jurisdiction.
But the truth. is, the question is one of error and not of jurisdiction. The, state court had jurisdiction of the- parties, and they were served with process and-. appeared. It had jurisdiction of .the foreclosure of liens, and it had a right to hear and determine whether the alleged liens still -existed, and whether, there was any valid, defence to their enforcement. The property upon which the liens were -claimed was not in the possession of the bankrupt court, but only in the posses-sion of the party purchasing from it. So, whether • it erred in deciding that the lien holders had a claim upon the land rathei; than upon the. fund in the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy, is immaterial. It presented simply a matter of error. An error in its ruling did not oust it of jurisdiction.' r.Tke error, if error' it was, could be corrected only by appeal The failure of the party to exhaust his remedy in that direction .does not now entitle him to disregard’ the entire proceed
*299
ing as without jurisdiction.
Winchester
v.
Heiskell,
"We see no error in the ruling of the Circuit Court and its judgment is
Affirmed.