the circuit judge thereupon directed a verdict for defendants. The files which were offered in evidence and rejected. would have shown that the defendant Long, purporting to act as the attorney of Meyers, made the affidavit in the attachment suit. The defendants' objection to the bond was that the defendant Meyers had denied its execution under oath. Exception was taken upon its second rejection. The bond should have been admitted in evidence. The testimony of Hutchinson tended to prove the agency of the attorney, Long, who instituted the suit in which the bond was given, and also Meyers' ratification of Long's act in instituting the attachment suit. In all cases in attachment in justice's court the law requires the plaintiff to give a bond before the writ shall issue. Meyers recognized Long's agency in commencing the suit, and we think, if the testimony of Hutchinson is believed, there was testimony from which a jury might very properly infer a ratification of the acts of Long by Meyers in the institution of the attachment suit, including all he did in such suit. Palmer v. Seligman, 77 Mich. 305. Having given this testimony tending to show ratification, it was competent for the plaintiff to introduce the bond in evidence as testimony material to his case, and to supplement it by showing that Long signed Meyers' name to it. The court erred in rejecting the bond. We think the files and judgment in the attachment suit were also admissible in evidence, but, as no exception was taken to the ruling of the court in this regard, the case is not reversed for this error. The judgment below is reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs of this Court to plaintiff. The other Justices concurred. IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE GEORGE T. CONTEMPT, ETC. Assignment for benefit of creditors-Fraud-Estoppel-Appointment of receiver-Contempt proceedings. 1. The right of a creditor to complain of an assignment for the benefit of creditors in the execution of which there may have been fraud, and which may have been fraudulent as to creditors, may be lost by waiver or acquiescence. Blake v. Hubbard, 45 Mich. 4. 2. Where a creditor comes in under the assignment proceedings in such a way as to entitle himself to share in the dividends arising from the assets in the hands of the assignee, he waives all objection to his title to such assets. So held, where the president of a corporation, pursuant to a resolution of the board of directors, of which he was a member, executed an assignment of the corporate property for the benefit of creditors, which assignment he delivered to the assignees, who entered upon the discharge of the trust, after which he filed claims under the assignment proceedings as a creditor, and, after waiting for nearly a year,-during which time the assignees were closing out the estate, with his knowledge, and without objection on his part,-filed a bill to set aside the assignment because fraudulently made, and to restrain further proceedings thereunder; which action he is held to have estopped himself from taking. 3. Under the general supervisory powers of a court of chancery over assignment proceedings, it may proceed upon petition to the removal of the assignee, and may, in the same proceeding, appoint a receiver. 4. A finding in a proceeding for contempt under chapter 256, How. Stat., that the respondent has brought a suit against the receivers appointed upon the removal of assignees under an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and is prosecuting the same knowingly, and without leave of the court having control of the assignment, and that in so doing he has been and is guilty of contempt of said court, and of its jurisdiction and authority, but which fails to find that such misconduct was calculated to or did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of any party in said assignment proceeding, is sufficient to warrant an order restraining the further prosecution of said suit, and directing its discontinuance, but does not authorize the imposition of a fine, and imprisonment in default of its payment; but, on the failure of the respondent to comply with such order, he can, upon proper showing and finding of facts, be subjected to such penalties within the statute as the court may impose.1 Appeal from Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Argued April 23, 1891. Decided May 21, 1891. Contempt proceedings under How. Stat. chap. 256. Respondent appeals from order adjudging him guilty of contempt, which is modified and affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Tarsney & Weadock, for appellant. Thomas A. Wilson (E. F. Conely and Orla B. Taylor, of counsel), for receivers. LONG, J. The George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Company was manufacturing corporation organized under the laws of this State, and had up to January 14, 1890, and for some years preceding that date, been engaged in business at Jackson, in this State. On the 14th day of January, 1890, said corporation made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors to Rufus H. Emerson and Zenas C. Eldred. The assignees filed a bond, a list of creditors of said corporation, and For cases involving contempt proceedings, see Scott v. Layng, 59 Mich. 43; Silver Plate Co. v. Schimmel, Id. 524; Chapel v. Hull, 60 Id. 168 (head-note 4); Railroad Co. v. Circuit Judge, Id. 232; Scott v. Circuit Judge, 62 Id. 582; Bagley & Co. v. Scudder, 66 Id. 97; Potts v. Potts, 68 Id. 492; Langdon v. Circuit Judges, 76 Id. 358; Latimer v. Barmore, 81 Id. 592; In re Wood, 82 Id. 75; Smith v. Circuit Judge, 84 Id. 564. an inventory of the property assigned, in the office of the county clerk of Jackson county. The matter of said assignment was removed from the circuit court for the county of Jackson to the circuit court for the county of Wayne, in chancery, and now remains in the court last named.1 Subsequent to such removal, Edmund W. Kittredge and Joseph Wilby applied by petition to the Wayne circuit court, in chancery, for the removal of said assignees, and the appointment of receivers of the property of said corporation in their stead. To this petition Rufus H. Emerson and Zenas C. Eldred made answer, and, upon the matter being presented to the circuit court for Wayne county, on the 24th day of April, 1890, the court made an order reciting that the said Emerson and Eldred assented to being removed as assignees of said corporation, and by the terms of said order said Emerson and Eldred were appointed receivers of all the lands, tenements, goods, property, and choses in action belonging to said George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Company, with all the powers of receivers in such cases, as well as all the rights and powers conferred upon them by the deed of assignment, and the statutes regulating assignments, and. requiring them to give a bond of $500,000 for the faithful performance of their trust. This order appointing Emerson and Eldred receivers authorized them to make sale of the lands and property of said corporation in the manner therein specified. On the 31st day of December, A. D. 1890, George T. Smith, as president and one of the stockholders of said George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Company, filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court for the county of Jackson, in chancery, against Rufus H. Emerson and 1 See Kittridge v. Circuit Judge, 80 Mich. 200. Zenas C. Eldred, in which Mr. Smith alleges, substantially, that the said Emerson and Eldred were claiming to be receivers of the George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Company, and were proceeding to sell the property, lands, and tenements belonging to said George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Company, and would sell the same on the 2d of January, 1891, unless restrained by an injunction, for which he prayed. Smith alleged that the said Emerson and Eldred were not receivers of said corporation; that the alleged assignment of the George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Company was wholly void, for the reason that it was not authorized by the stockholders of said corporation, and that such sale would create a cloud on the title to the land of said corporation; and in the bill so filed, Smith alleged that he filed said bill as one of the stockholders of the corporation, for the reason that the board of directors of the corporation pretended to be laboring under the erroneous impression that said Emerson and Eldred were legally appointed receivers. Thereupon Emerson and Eldred filed their petition in the Wayne circuit court, in chancery, in which they claimed to recite the history of the assignment matter, and in which petition they alleged that Smith did not obtain permission of the Wayne circuit court, in chancery, to file said bill, and prayed for an injunction to restrain the prosecution of said suit, and that appellant be punished for contempt for having filed said bill of complaint without permission. To the petition, so filed by Emerson and Eldred, Smith filed his answer, setting forth substantially the history of the litigation, and some of the reasons upon which he based his action for filing his bill of complaint, and in which answer he gave his reasons why he should not be punished for contempt. The matter came on to be heard on the 19th day of January, A. D. 1891, before Hon. George S. Hosmer, |