§ 391. Proceedings were begun in a state court of Missouri, under a statute, for the dissolution of an insurance company and the appointment of a receiver. After the beginning of the proceedings, and before the decree of dissolution, a suit was begun and a judgment obtained against the company in the federal court. On a motion in the federal court for an execution and an order on the receiver, held, that the decree of dissolution placed in custody of the state court all assets of the company, as of the day of petition filed, and the judgment in the federal court was, like any other demand, subject to be allowed on presentation in the state court. Levi v. Columbia Life Ins. Co.,* 1 McC., 34.

$392. Replevin in state court- Admiralty suit.- A suit in replevin in a state court will not prevent an admiralty court from proceeding in rem to enforce a lien on the property. Certain Logs of Mahogany, 2 Sumn., 592.

§ 393. Receiver of state court sued in federal court.— A bill by a stockholder of a railroad, brought in the circuit court of the United States, against the receiver of a railroad appointed by a state court and the railroad company, is bad on demurrer, as the receiver cannot be sued except in the court in which he was appointed, and the railroad property also being in the jurisdiction and possession of the court, the company cannot be sued in the federal court. Conkling v. Butler, 4 Biss., 24.

§ 394. Injunction by federal upon state court or its officers, and vice versa.- A federal court cannot stop legal proceedings in a state court by injunction. City Bank v. Skelton, 2 Blatch., 18; Slaughter House Case, 1 Woods, 34.

§ 395. A federal court cannot interfere by injunction to prevent a sheriff from selling on execution property which he has already seized under execution from a state court. Daly v. The Sheriff, 1 Woods, 176.

§ 396. When an injunction sought in a federal court would be effectual only by barring the progress of a suit in a state court, the federal court has no jurisdiction to grant such aǹ injunction. Chaffin v. St. Louis, 4 Dill., 23.

§ 397. A state court has no jurisdiction to enjoin a judgment of the circuit court. M'Kim v. Voorhies,* 7 Cr., 279.

§ 398. A federal court cannot by injunction interfere with the disposition of property in the hands of a receiver appointed by a state court and acting under its orders. Hutchinson v. Green,* 2 McC., 471.

§ 399. A state court has no power to enjoin the levying of an execution issuing from a federal court. Roshell v. Maxwell,* Hemp., 25.

§ 400. Though a writ of injunction will not be granted by a federal court to stay proceedings in a state court, yet an injunction will be granted to restrain a sheriff from laying or continuing an attachment which he is not authorized by the state law to make. Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt., 468.

§ 401. The circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecution of an action of trespass in a state court, against the marshal of this court, for taking the goods of one person upon execution against another. And a restraining order issued upon the filing of such a bill is not merely irregular but void for want of jurisdiction. Evans v. Pack, 7 Cent. L. J., 409. See §§ 270–273.

§ 402. Property consisting of a chapel, school-house, and on an Indian reservation, was replevied under a writ from a state court. The defendant subsequently filed a bill in equity in the federal court to enjoin the plaintiff from taking possession of, holding or intermeddling with the property in question. Held, that the effect of this injunction would be to stay proceedings in the state court, and that this was beyond the power of the federal court, although the plaintiff in the injunction suit claimed the property for the purposes of a public charity. Domestic, etc., Missionary Society v. Hinman,* 2 McC., 543.

§ 433. By sec. 720, R. S. U. S., the United States courts are prohibited from granting a writ of injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except in cases where the bankruptcy law provides otherwise. Under this statute, the circuit court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction to stay proceedings in the probate court of a state, in which proceedings a national bank has been summoned under a state statute to produce its books of account and deposit and disclose the names of its depositors and the amount of deposits. First Nat. Bank of Youngstown v. Hughes, 6 Fed. R., 737.

§ 404. When a sheriff attempts by violence to prevent a United States marshal from performing his duties as an officer of the federal courts, a writ of injunction will issue from such courts to restrain the sheriff. Crane v. McCoy, 1 Bond, 428.

§ 405. The indorser of a promissory note sued the maker in a state court. The defendant then brought a bill in equity in another state court to enjoin the p'aintiff from proceeding. This was removed into the federal court and an injunction granted. Held, that the federal court could not enjoin proceedings in a state court, and the decree was reversed. Diggs v. Wolcott,* 4 Cr., 179.

§ 406. Injunction by state as against mandamus from federal court. When a federal court has issued a mandamus to state officers to perform certain acts, it will also punish them for contempt if they, in obedience to an injunction from a state court, refuse to perform those acts. United States v. Supervisors of Lee County,* 9 Int. Rev. Rec., 25.

§ 407. A town issued bonds to aid a railroad and levied a tax to pay them. A bondholder obtained judgment in the circuit court of the United States, and sued out a mandamus to compel the town to pay the judgment. To this the town returned that an injunction had been issued by the state court to prevent their paying the judgment. This return was upheld by the circuit court, but the decision was reversed by the supreme court, on the ground that a state court could not interfere with the enforcement of a judgment of a federal court. United States v. Council of Keokuk, 6 Wall., 515.

§ 408. Where a county issued bonds to help a railroad, and authorized a tax to pay interest, and a bondholder brought suit for interest in the United States circuit court, and got judgment, and obtained a mandamus to the county officers to levy a tax to pay the judgment, it was held that an injunction by a state court on the county officers, forbidding them to levy the tax because the vote authorizing it was illegal, was no defense to them for not obeying the mandamus. Supervisors v. Durant, 9 Wall., 417.

§ 409. When judgments have been recovered in the United States circuit court against a county on bonds issued by the county to assist a railroad, a mandamus will issue from the court to the county officers to levy and collect taxes to satisfy the judgment. If it appears that, from public excitement or disturbance, they are unable to collect the tax, the court will empower the United States marshal to perform the same duties. No injunction by the state courts can prevent the execution of this order. United States v. Muscatine County, 2 Abb., 53.

§ 410. Mandamus by federal court upon county officers.- When a federal court issues a mandamus requiring county officers to levy and collect a tax, they will be in contempt if they do not collect such tax, though a state court has given a decree annulling the levy made by them. United States v. Silverman, 4 Dill., 226.

§ 411. Habeas corpus by state court where one is confined under federal authority, and vice versa.- When the return on a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state judge shows that the prisoner is lawfully detained under federal authority, the state judge cannot discharge the prisoner; the federal authority in such case is paramount to that of the state. Norris v. Newton, 5 McL., 97. See § 332-336.

§ 412. When a person is kept in confinement as a soldier of the United States army, by the proper officer of that army, a state court has no authority to inquire into the validity of the enlistment by which he became a member of that army; but if these facts are returned upon a writ of habeas corpus sent out by the state court, that court should upon this return dismiss the application and leave the prisoner to the federal authorities. Tarble's Case, 13 Wall., 401.

§ 413. Where the courts of the United States and of a state have concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first take jurisdiction keeps it. A person confined by the United States court, under due process, cannot be liberated on habeas corpus issued from a state court. United States v. Doss,* 11 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.), 320.

§ 414. A state court issued a writ of habeas corpus for an enlisted soldier in the federal army. His commander returned that he kept the soldier under authority of the United States. The state court, however, proceeded to try the enlistment, declared it invalid, and ordered the commander to discharge the soldier. He refused to do so and was arrested for contempt by the state court. On application by him to the United States district court on habeas corpus, that court held that the state court had no jurisdiction over the case, and that when the return showed that the soldier was held under the laws of the United States, that should have been adjudged a sufficient authority to keep him. In re Farrand, 1 Abb., 141. § 415. A United States marshal and a district attorney were imprisoned by a state court for contempt in not delivering certain ballot-boxes, polling lists and other paraphernalia of elections to the court when ordered. The officers held this property by order of the circuit court, as part of the subject-matter of suits for illegal voting, then pending in the circuit court. It was held that under section 753 of the United States Revised Statutes, the officers were entitled to be discharged on writ of habeas corpus from the circuit court. Ex parte Turner, 8 Woods, 604.

§ 416. If a person is held in custody under the laws of a state, he cannot be released from that custody, if it is lawful, by a habeas corpus from a federal court. Norris v. Newton,* 7 West. L. J., 521.

$ 417. By act of congress of 22d March, 1833, the judges of the district court may issue a writ of habeas corpus in all cases where a prisoner in jail is committed for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States. Held, that under this act a writ would issue to the constable of

a state who had a United States marshal under arrest for violence offered to a negro in order to arrest him under the fugitive slave law. Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr., 525.

§ 418. Jurisdiction of federal court where there is a concurrent jurisdiction in state court not exercised. If a case is brought before a federal court over which it has complete jurisdiction, the fact that a state court has concurrent jurisdiction will not authorize the federal court to decline jurisdiction. Tobey v. County of Bristol, 3 Story, 818 (ARBITRATION, $$ 63-71).

§ 419. The federal courts may take jurisdiction of the accounts of executors, as courts of equity, in a proper case, although a probate court of a state has jurisdiction of similar cases, provided the subject-matter of the case in question has not already been brought before the state court. Allen v. Allen,* 14 Leg. Int., 148.

§ 420. The fact that the orphans' court in Pennsylvania has by law an equity jurisdiction over certain accounts, etc., exclusive of all other courts of the state, does not take away the concurrent jurisdiction of the circuit court as a court of equity over the same matters. Allen v. Allen,* 3 Wall. Jr., 248.

§ 421. When a citizen of one state brings a bill in equity in the circuit court, as a creditor of a partnership, against the representatives of a deceased partner, to compel an account of the partnership property, and for the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the property, the fact that the probate court in which such representatives are settling the estate has full jurisdiction to settle all the partnership accounts, does not compel the non-resident creditor to abandon his bill in the federal court, and pursue his claim in the state court. Fiske v. Gould, 12 Fed. R., 373.

§ 422. The jurisdiction of the circuit court to appoint a receiver of an insolvent insurance company upon a bill brought by a citizen of another state is not defeated by the fact that a bill for the same purpose has been filed by another creditor in the state court, but not brought to issue, nor by a bill made out but not filed in the state court, by a trustee to whom the company has conveyed all its property in trust for creditors. Buck v. Piedmont, etc., Ins. Co., 4 Fed. R., 851.

§ 423. An action was brought by non-residents of the state, in the circuit court, against receivers of a railroad appointed by a state court, to enforce liens on rolling stock and earnings pledged by the receivers. In the decree of the state court authorizing the pledging, it was provided that, in case of default by the receivers, the holders of the notes might apply to that court for a summary order, and this part of the decree was printed on the notes. Held, that there was nothing in the fact that a party might apply to the state court to prevent him from applying to the circuit court; and that the fact that property was being administered in state proceedings did not prevent citizens of other states from proceeding in a federal court to establish claims and obtain relief where entitled to it. Griswold v. Central Vermont R. Co.,* 9 Fed. R., 797.

§ 424. In an equity cause brought in a federal court, that court will keep its jurisdiction if it has cognizance of the subject-matter, although the state court may have concurrent jurisdiction, if the matter was first laid before the federal court. In its equity proceedings the federal court is not governed by the laws and practice of the state where it is sitting, but by the rules of chancery. Burt v. Keyes,* 3 West. L. Mo., 294.

§ 425. The circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction of a bill in equity to reopen an account in a probate office in another state, although by the state law exclusive authority over probate accounts is given to the probate court. The only test of the equity jurisdiction of a federal court is whether or not the law side of the court affords a plain, adequate and complete remedy. Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall., 425.

§ 426. The federal courts have jurisdiction of a suit by a legatee against an administrator co-extensive with the jurisdiction of courts of equity, although a state court may have concurrent jurisdiction of the same cases. Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mason, 105.

§ 427. The circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court to enforce against an executor the payment of a judgment obtained against the testator in his life-time, and subsequently sued upon in such circuit court, and judgment obtained thereon against the executor. Chapman v. Borer,* 1 McC., 50.

§ 428. Where suit in federal court does not interfere with suit in state court touching same matter.- When a federal court has before it a suit which touches the same subjectmatter as a suit before a state court of concurrent jurisdiction, if the federal court can make a full disposition of the case before it, without disturbing the possession of the state court, or its control over the subject-matter of the suit, it will retain jurisdiction of the case. Andrews v. Smith, 19 Blatch., 101.

§ 429. Although where a United States court and a state court have concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the subject-matter will retain it, yet if the other court can proceed without interfering with the possession or jurisdiction of the

first court, it will do so and will not dismiss the case before it. Logan v. Greenlaw, 12 Fed. R., 18.

§ 430. When a United States marshal, who had taken on attachment, in a suit in the circuit court, goods not belonging to the defendant named in his process, was sued by the owner of the goods for trespass, and, after decision for plaintiff, removed the case to the supreme court of the United States on a writ of error, it was there held that the suit in the state court did not interfere with the suit in the federal court under which the goods were attached. Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall., 342.

§ 431. While it is true that when a state court and a federal court have concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first takes jurisdiction will keep it, yet when a suit is brought in a federal court, affecting a right to property which is in the possession of the state court, in process of litigation, but not affecting the possession of the property, the federal court will settle such right and not compel the parties to go to the state court. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamoille Valley R. Co., 16 Blatch., 326.

§ 432. Revisory jurisdiction of federal court over state court.-A federal court cannot revise errors in the orders and findings of a state court, if that court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the case before it and of the parties. Colt v. Colt, 19 Blatch., 465.

$433. The circuit court of the United States will not review the decisions of a state court of general jurisdiction which has decided a cause properly brought before it, and of which it had jurisdiction both as to parties and subject-matter. Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 587.

§ 434. A federal court will never review the judgment of a state court upon a case properly before it and of which it has jurisdiction, merely because the party asking for review declares the judgment to be contrary to some state law. Nor have the federal courts jurisdiction over the settlement of insolvencies in the state courts. Adams v. Preston, 22 How., 488. § 435. Except as specially enacted by congress, the state and federal courts are entirely independent of each other, and one cannot enjoin or restrain the proceedings of the other. Instances where a federal court has a revisory jurisdiction of state court proceedings are where a state court decides against the validity of some law or treaty of the United States, or in suits between citizens of different states. Rogers v. Cincinnati, 5 McL., 339.

§ 436. Annulling a will.—The circuit court of California will not entertain a bill to annul a will and its probate on the ground of forgery, the probate court of California which granted the probate having had full power to grant the relief sought here, while the proceedings instituted for proving the will were pending and for a year afterwards. Case of Broderick's Will, 21 Wall., 503.

§ 437. Between federal and federal.-If a vessel seized by the marshal of one district is wrongfully seized and taken into another district, and is there seized by the marshal of that district, the second seizure is void and the court will order the vessel returned. The Brig Joseph Gorham,* 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 388.

§ 438. This court has power to prohibit a non-resident plaintiff from proceeding against a defendant resident within the state, in the federal courts. It seems that it would not exercise such authority over a state court. City Bank of New York v. Skelton, 2 Blatch., 26.

§ 439. The pendency of a prior suit in another jurisdiction is not a bar to a subsequent suit in a circuit court or in the court below, even though the two suits are for the same cause of action. Stanton v. Embrey, 3 Otto, 554 (ATT'YS, §§ 226–231).

§ 440. If a suit is pending in a circuit court of the United States against one who is declared a bankrupt under the national bankrupt act, such adjudication does not oust the jurisdiction of the circuit court, if it has proper jurisdiction of the parties, the subjectmatter and the controversy. Burbank v. Bigelow, 2 Otto, 181.

§ 441. On a libel in admiralty to enforce a maritime lien, it was held that proceedings in voluntary bankruptcy, which had previously been instituted in another district, were no bar to the jurisdiction of this court, the lien sought to be enforced having been created prior to the petition, and the vessel not having been taken into the possession of the court in bankruptcy. The Ironsides, 4 Biss., 518.

§ 442. A decree of foreclosure was rendered in the district court of Wisconsin while posBessing circuit court powers. Later, in the same year, the act of July 15, 1862, established a circuit court in that district, and deprived the district court of circuit court powers. The marshal made his return of sale to the circuit court in October, 1862. In January, 1863, the court set aside the sale and ordered another. March 3, 1863, congress authorized district courts, when they had rendered final judgments or decrees as circuit courts prior to July 15, 1862, to issue writs of execution, etc., to enforce such judgments or decrees. The marshal made a second sale in April, 1863, and made his return to the district court. On the refusal of an application in the circuit court for a rule to have the return made to that court, it was held by the supreme court that, by a proper construction of the act of March 3, 1863, the powers conferred on district courts were only such as were necessary to control the ministe

rial duties of officers in the execution of final powers; that the act of confirming or setting aside a sale involved the exercise of judgment, and hence was not within the powers given the district courts. Milwaukee R Co. v. Soutter,* 5 Wall., 660.

§ 443. Law and equity.- Courts of law and courts of equity have concurrent jurisdiction of fraud. Russell v. Clark, 7 Cr., 89; Swayze v. Burke, 12 Pet., 23.

§ 444. A party defeated in a suit at law cannot, by merely charging fraud upon his opponents, obtain a trial in equity on the ground that courts of equity have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law in matter of fraud, since in cases of concurrent jurisdiction the court first taking cognizance of the case must determine it conclusively. Smith v. M'Iver,* 9 Wheat., 532.

§ 445. Miscellaneous.- Where several parties set up conflicting claims to property, with which a special tribunal may deal as between one party and the government, regardless of the rights of others, the latter may come into the ordinary courts of justice and litigate the conflicting claims. Garland v. Wynn, 20 How.. 7.

§ 446. The circuit court judges feel obliged to follow not only previous decisions in their own circuit in cases similar to the one before them, but decisions of other circuits in similar cases. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, 1 Flip., 390.

§ 447. It is a rule absolutely necessary to be observed by courts who have a concurrent jurisdiction, that in all cases where the jurisdiction of a court and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit in it have once attached, that right cannot be taken away by proceedings in another court. Orton v. Smith, 18 How., 265.

§ 448. As between two courts of concurrent jurisdiction, e. g., two circuits of the United States circuit court, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the subject-matter will retain it, and another court will not interfere. Davis v. Life Association of America, 11 Fed. R., 788.

3. Affected by Judgments of Other Courts.

SUMMARY - Erroneous judgments binding, § 449.- Presumptions of jurisdiction, § 450, 451.- Errors to be corrected by same court, § 452.- Jurisdiction may be inquired into, § 453.- Failure through defective service, § 454.— Failure through want of parties, § 455.– Judgment to be reversed only in same court, § 456.- Jurisdiction dependent on the record, S$ 457, 458.-Sufficient record, § 459.— General and limited jurisdiction, § 460.- Decision upon the jurisdiction binding everywhere, § 461.- Erroneous judgment of competent court, § 462.— Decree of orphans' court, § 463.— Acts beyond the jurisdiction are void, § 464.— Judgment without opportunity to be heard, §§ 465–467.

§ 449. Where a court has jurisdiction of a cause, all its proceedings, however erroneous, are valid until reversed in some direct proceeding. Harvey v. Tyler, §§ 468-474.

§ 450. In case of proceedings of courts of general jurisdiction, all presumptions not inconsistent with the record are adjudged in favor of jurisdiction. Ibid.

§ 451. When new powers, conferred by statute, are to be brought into exercise in the usual form of common law or chancery proceedings, the same presumptions will be made in favor of jurisdiction, but new powers may be conferred to be exercised in a special manner, in which the order or judgment must be supported by a record showing affirmatively that the court had jurisdiction. Ibid.

§ 452. Where proceedings in another court are collaterally drawn in question, and it appears from the record that the court had jurisdiction, the judgment of that court is conclusive until reversed, and any errors may be corrected only in the same or in an appellate court. Thompson v. Tolmie, §§ 475-479.

§ 453. The jurisdiction of any court may be inquired into where a right or benefit is claimed under its proceedings. Gray v. Larrimore, §§ 480–485.

§ 454. Where a defendant resided in another state, and the statute, as to service by publication, was not strictly followed, the court was without jurisdiction. Ibid.

§ 455. In a suit to settle the affairs of a partnership, all the legal representatives of a deceased partner are necessary parties, and a decree determining their rights was held invalid as to all, when it appeared that one of them was not within the jurisdiction of the court. Ibid.

§ 456. A proceeding between the original parties to a suit in a state court to set aside a judgment on the grounds that defendant was not served with notice, and that he had been discharged as a bankrupt, must, according to the Louisiana code, and according to common law practice, be brought in the same court. A federal court could not entertain jurisdiction of such a proceeding, were it removed thither, although the parties were citizens of different states. Barrow v. Hunton, §§ 486-488.