held that any litigation for the possession of the property must take place in that Court, no matter what the citizenship of the parties might be. There it was sought to test the question as to the right of possession by what was called a supplemental bill. It was said that it was brought in violation of the rules of equity pleading; that the subject matter and the new parties made by it were not such as could properly be brought before the Court by that class of bills. The Supreme Court said:

"But we think that the question is not whether the proceeding is supplemental and ancillary or is independent and original, in the sense of the rules of equity pleading; but whether it is supplemental and ancillary or is to be considered entirely new and original, in the sense which this court has sanctioned with reference to the line which divides the jurisdiction of the Federal courts from that of the State Courts. No one, for instance, would heistate to say that, according to English chancery practice, a bill to enjoin a judgment at law, is an original bill in the chancery sense of the word. Yet this court has decided many times, that when a bill is filed in the Circuit Court, to enjoin a judgment of that court, it is not to be considered as an original bill, but as a continuation of the proceeding at law; so much so. that the court will proceed in the injunction suit without actual service of subpoena on the defendant, and though he be a citizen of another State, if he were a party to the judgment at law. The case before us is analogous. An unjust advantage has been obtained by one party over another by a perversion and abuse of the orders of the court."1

The Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois had taken possession of a railroad under a bill filed to foreclose a mortgage, and had placed it in the hands of a receiver. Subsequently an Illinois creditor sued out an attachment in the State Court and seized some of its property, whereupon the original complainants intervened and applied for the removal of the case to the Federal Court.

'Minnesota Co. vs. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 632.

The parties entered into an agreement which was silent as to their citizenship, but which provided for the removal of the proceedings to the United States Court. The Supreme Court held that the removal was not only permissible, but that it was the proper thing to do. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States did not "depend on the citizenship of the parties, but on the subject-matter of the litigation. That was in the actual possession of that Court when the State Court attempted to levy its writ of attachment on the property. It was for the Court having such possession to determine how far it would permit any other Court to interfere with that possession."2

3

A judgment recovered in a suit brought against a Federal receiver for a transaction growing out of his conduct of business, as permitted by Act of Congress, cannot be enforced by execution upon the property in his hands. Satisfaction of it can be obtained only through the order of the Court, under whom the defendant is acting.*

358. Do. Even When Possession of Res Is Irregularly Acquired Exclusive Jurisdiction May Attach.— Citizens of States other than Louisiana obtained from the United States Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana certain writs of attachment. These writs were sued out and issued on Sunday, and by the law and practice in Louisiana they were for that reason invalid. The Marshal, however, acted under them and seized the property, such seizure also being made on Sunday. A few minutes after midnightthat is, on the following Monday morning,-a citizen of Louisiana got out an attachment from the State Court, but the sheriff was not allowed to serve it by the Marshal who held possession under the Sunday attachments. A little later on Monday morning the original plaintiffs sued out new

'People's Bank vs. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256.

Sec. 299, supra.

4 Gableman vs. Peoria, Etc., Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 335.

writs of attachment in the Federal Court, and under them the Marshal continued to hold the property. Subsequently the creditor who had attempted to proceed in the State Court filed his petition in the Federal, and asked to be given a preference out of the proceeds of the goods to the amount of the claim for which he had attached. The Supreme Court held that he was entitled to this preference; that the Marshal had no right to hold the property under the Sunday attachments; yet as they were not absolutely void on their face, and as he actually held it, the creditor who had sought the aid of the State Court had been compelled to come into the Federal, but that the latter would give him all the rights that he would have had, if the Marshal had acted properly.1

359. Do.-Citizenship of Intervenors Usually Immaterial. Certain non-resident creditors filed a creditors' bill in a State Court of Mississippi, and subsequently removed it to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of that State. Afterwards other creditors who were citizens of Mississippi intervened in the case and were admitted as parties plaintiff. It was objected that, as thereafter there were citizens of Mississippi on both sides of the controversy, the Court was without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court answered: "The right of the Court to proceed to decree between the appellants and the new parties did not depend upon difference of citizenship; because, the bill having been filed by the original complainants on behalf of themselves and all other creditors choosing to come in and share the expenses of the litigation, the court, in exercising jurisdiction between the parties, could incidentally decree in favor of all other creditors coming in under the bill."1

360. Federal Courts of Equity Have Exclusive Jurisdiction to Enjoin Enforcement of Federal Judgments. -An amusing illustration of how much difference it may

make whether the proceeding is in essentials an original one or merely ancillary or dependent, is afforded by the case of Johnson vs. Christian.1

In that case the bill was filed to release certain lands from a deed of trust and to remove a cloud upon the title growing out of a sale and deed. On April 16, 1888, the Supreme Cour announced that on looking into the record “we can find no evidence of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The bill commences in this way: 'The complainants, George Christian and Jerry Steuart, citizens of the County of Chicot and State of Arkansas, would respectfully represent,' etc. Joel Johnson is the sole defendant, but there is no allegation as to his citizenship, nor does that appear anywhere in the record." The decree below in favor of the plaintiffs was accordingly reversed. Thereupon the attention of the Court was called to the fact that a paragraph of the bill set forth that by virtue of the sale which it was sought to set aside, the defendant had instituted a suit in ejectment on the law side of the United States Court for the District of Arkansas, and "your complainants, not being admitted to interpose their equitable defense to the same he did” * * * "obtain judgment in ejectment against them." On the 14th of May in the same year the Supreme Court admitted that it had overlooked this allegation; that it was sufficient to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction of the case without any averment of the citizenship of the parties; the suit in equity was merely an incident of, and ancillary to, the ejectment suit, and no other Court than the one which rendered the judgment in ejectment could interfere with it or stay process in it on the ground set forth in the bill.

In the case of Compton vs. Jesup, the whole subject was ably reviewed by the then JUDGE TAFT, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.2

361. Federal Court Has Jurisdiction of Suits by its Receivers Irrespective of Citizenship or Amount in Controversy. The Supreme Court of the United States

1125 U. S. 642.

2 Compton vs. Jesup, 68 Fed. 263.

has recognized a logical extension of this doctrine to a subject of great practical importance. It has held that a Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction, in a general creditors' suit properly pending therein for the collection, administration and distribution of the assets of an insolvent corporation, to hear and determine an ancillary suit instituted in the same Court by its receivers, in accordance with its order against debtors of such corporation, although in such suit the receiver claims the right to recover from the debtor a sum less than the amount required by Par. 1 of Sec. 24 of the Judicial Code. The Supreme Court said:

"it is insisted that there is a distinction between cases were parties are brought before the court for the purpose of the payment to them of claims they may hold. against the estate, and cases where it is sought to recover of them claims which the receiver insists they owe the estate; that the receiver stands in the shoes of the company, and has no higher rights than the corporation, and having sued for less than the jurisdictional amounts, that as to them the cases must be dismissed. This position is entirely correct, so far as the right of the receiver to recover upon the merits is concerned; but it has no bearing whatever upon the question of the jurisdiction of the court to pass upon such merits." *** “In this case, however, the court proceeds upon its own authority to collect the assets of an estate, with the administration of which it is charged; and, if the receiver in such cases appears as a party to the suit, it is only because he represents the court in its inherent power to wind up the estate of an insolvent corporation, over which it has by an original bill obtained jurisdiction." *** “There is just as much reason for questioning the jurisdiction of the court in this case upon the ground of the want of diverse citizenship, as upon the ground that the requisite amount is not involved."1

362. Injunctions Against Proceedings in State Courts-Federal Courts May Not Ordinarily Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts.-One of the best established heads of equity jurisdiction is the issue of injunctions to pro

White vs. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36.