and cases have arisen in which each court has administered the assets within its jurisdiction independently of the administration of the court of primary jurisdiction.5 Where the trustees of a second mortgage on a railroad had begun a foreclosure suit, making the trustee of the first mortgage a party, and receivers had been appointed and taken possession, it was held that the first mortgagee should not be allowed to bring an independent foreclosure suit, but must seek the relief he wished in the suit instituted by the second mortgagee. Where the evidence, affecting the decision of an application made to one of the courts of ancillary jurisdiction, was within the custody of another court of ancillary jurisdiction; the former denied the motion, without prejudice to an application to the latter. Where a controversy arose out of transactions in the ancillary jurisdiction, it was held: that the court there should determine the same.8 Where a Federal Court in another district, in a suit between other parties, had refused an injunetion against a railroad merger and consolidation, the motion, for substantially the same relief, was denied.9 The court in which a trustee has begun a foreclosure suit should not enjoin the trustee from suing in a Federal Court in another district to enforce a guarantee of the bonds by a person who is a stranger to the foreclosure suit and held no interest in the mortgaged property.10 When the Federal Court in one district has forbidden certain acts, the party enjoined cannot by filing a bill in another district be granted permission to perform the acts enjoined.11 5 The Wabash Cases: Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. 161; Central T. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. 618; U. S. T. Co., v. Wabash, St. L. & See also P. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. 343. Mercantile T. Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. 337; Central T. Co. v. East Tenn., Va. & G. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 658; N. Y. Security & T. Co. v. Equitable Mtg. Co., 71 Fed. 556; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 272, 35 L. ed. 464; infra, § 304. § 60a. Conflicting jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in Bankruptcy and Equity. After an adjudication of bankruptcy in the same or another district the Federal Court sitting in equity has no jurisdiction to interfere with the custody of the property, or with the administration of the estate by setting aside the adjudication or sale in the bankruptcy proceeding 3 by staying the bankruptcy proceedings or by enjoining suit by the trustees in bankruptcy.4 or it § 60b. Conflicting jurisdiction of Federal Courts of Admiralty and Equity. Before the abolition of the Circuit Courts was held: that a District Court could not seize property by process in admiralty, in order to apply it upon a claim that arose before the appointment of a receiver by the Circuit Court in the same district unless the Circuit Court gave permission to such taking and application,1 and that a Federal Court, which had, through its receiver, sold vessels subject to maritime liens and liens under the State laws for supplies, had no jurisdiction when sitting in equity to determine and enforce such liens, but that those matters belonged exclusively to the admiralty jurisdiction.2 § 60c. Conflicting jurisdiction of Federal Courts in bankruptcy and in admiralty. It has been held, that where a court of admiralty acquires jurisdiction by the filing of a libel in rem against a boat before the filing of a petition in bankruptcy against the owner in the same or another district, although within four months before the institution of the proceedings of when in bankruptcy; it may retain the possession for the purpose determining all questions concerning maritime liens even the boat was not seized in admiralty before the institution. of the bankruptcy proceedings; 2 but that a court of bankruptcy should not direct that a boat in the possession of its receiver belonging to an estate in bankruptcy, be surrendered to a court of admiralty to be subject to the suit of a libelant, who seeks to enforce a maritime lien against it for a liability which arose before or after the bankruptcy.3 A court in admiralty when distributing the proceeds of a sale may grant priority to the claims for fees and disbursements of a receiver in bankruptcy not a party to the admiralty proceedings. 4 § 61. Limitations upon jurisdiction by residence. Statutory provisions. The Judicial Code provides: $51. Except as provided in the five succeeding sections, no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a district court; and, except as provided in the six succeeding sections, no civil suit shall be brought in any district court against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. 66 "§ 52. When a State contains more than one district, every suit not of a local nature, in the district court thereof, against a single defendant, inhabitant of such State, must be brought in the district where he resides; but if there are two or more defendants, residing in different districts of the State, it may be brought in either district, and a duplicate writ may be issued against the defendants, directed to the marshal of any other district in which any defendant resides. The clerk issuing the duplicate writ shall indorse thereon that it is a true copy of a writ sued out of the court of the proper district; and such original and duplicate writs, when executed and returned into the office from which they issue, shall constitute and be proceeded on as one suit; and upon any judgment or decree rendered therein, execution may be issued, directed to the marshal of any district in the same State."1 "§ 53. When a district contains more than one division, every suit not of a local nature against a single defendant must be brought in the division where he resides; but if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions of the dis 3 The Casco, 230 Fed. 929. 4 Hudson Oil & Supply Co. v. Booraem, 216 U. S. 604, 54 L. ed. 636; affirming Re Hughes, 170 Fed. 809; s. c. in C. C. A. The Falcon, C. C. A., 177 Fed. 916. § 61. 1 St. at L. 1087. trict it may be brought in either division. All mesne and final process subject to the provisions of this section may be served and executed in any or all of the divisions of the district, or if the State contains more than one district, then in any of such districts, as provided in the preceding section. All prosecutions for crimes or offenses shall be had within the division of such districts where the same were committed, unless the court, or the judge thereof, upon the application of the defendant, shall order the cause to be transferred for prosecution to another division of the district. When a transfer is ordered by the' court or judge, all the papers in the case, or certified copies thereof, shall be transmitted by the clerk, under the seal of the court, to the division to which the cause is so ordered transferred; and thereupon the cause shall be proceeded with in said division in the same manner as if the offense had been committed therein. In all cases of the removal of suits from the courts of a State to the District court of the United States such removal shall be to the United States District court in the division in which the county is situated from which the removal is made; and the time within which the removal shall be perfected, in so far as it refers to or is regulated by the terms of United States courts, shall be deemed to refer to the terms of the United District Court in such division. States in a “§ 54. In suits of a local nature, where the defendant resides different district, in the same State, from that in which the suit is brought, the plaintiff may have original and final process against him, directed to the marshal of the district in which he resides.3 in one 55. Any suit of a local nature, at law or in equity, where the land or other subject-matter of a fixed character lies partly district and partly in another, within the same State. be brought in the district court of either district; and the in which it is brought shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide it, and to cause mesne or final process to be issued and executed, as fully as if the said subject-matter were wholly may court 21t has been held that where de- trict from that in which the court fendants reside in different districts of the Same State, an injunction sits. Babbitt v. Burgess, 2 Dillon, 169. Fed. Cas. No. 693. 3 See infra. § 64. A within the district for which such court is constituted. suit by a creditor of a railroad company to have its property, situated in different Federal districts of the same State, administered for the benefit of all creditors, is one of a local nature, which may be brought in either of such districts.5 It has been said that the appointment of a receiver therein is an equitable attachment of all property of the defendant within the State.6 "§ 56. Where in any suit in which a receiver shall be appointed the land or other property of a fixed character, the sub'ject of the suit lies within different States in the same judicial circuit, the receiver so appointed shall, upon giving bond as required by the court, immediately be vested with full jurisdiction and control over all the property, the subject of the suit, lying or being within such circuit; subject, however, to the disapproval of such order, within thirty days thereafter, by the circuit court of appeals for such circuit, or by a circuit judge thereof, after reasonable notice to adverse parties and an opportunity to be heard upon the motion of such disapproval; and subject, also, to the filing and entering in the district court for each district of the circuits in which any portion of the property may lie or be, within ten days thereafter, of a duly certified copy of the bill and of the order of appointment. The disapproval of such appointment within such thirty days, or of failure to file such certified copy of the bill and order of appointment. within ten days, as herein required, shall divest such receiver of jurisdiction over all such property except that portion thereof lying or being within the State in which the suit is brought. In any case coming within the provisions of this section, in which a receiver shall be appointed, process may issue and be executed within any district of the circuit in the same manner and to the same extent as if the property were wholly within the same district; but orders affecting such property shall be entered of record in each district in which the property offected may lie or be."7 "§ 57. When in any suit commenced in any District Court of the United States to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon or claim to, or to remove any incumbrance or lien or cloud upon 4 36 St. at L. 1087. 5 Horn v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 151 Fed. Cas. 626, 627. 6 Ibid. 736 St. at L. 1102, Comp. St. § 1038. |