Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/199

 FIFTH NATIONAL BANK V. P. & C. S. B. 00. 191 �have no right to relief in the manner proposed, even had they Bhown good ground therefor. I reach this conclusion with the less hesitation because it appears, from the affidavits read, that the petitioners now have in active sympathy and co-operation with them a majority of the board of directors, and, of course, have it in their power to control the corpora- tion and he heard in court through it. �I might here stop with a simple order dismissing the peti- tion, but the case is so peculiar that I feel called on to add some additional observations. �It was said by counsel for one of the judgment creditors that the court should itself take notice that the case is one not within the jurisdiction of the court. But I do not agree with the counsel upon the question of jurisdiction. By section 563 of the Eevised Statutes the United States district courts have jurisdiction, inter alla, "of ail suits by or againat any association established under any law providing for national banking associations within the district within which the court is held." �But while of opinion that the controversy is within the jurisdiction of this court, I am very sure a receiver of the defendant corporation would never have been appointed had the court been in possession of ail the facts which have been developed upon the present hearing. It is now plain that the rights of the plaintiff were not of such a character and were not in such jeopardy as to call for a remedy so extraordinary as the appointment of a receiver. Had any opposition been made by the defendants, clearly the court would have refused such appointment. In fact, it now for the first time appears that the corporation defendant acquiesced in, if it did not secretly promote, the appointment of a receiver in its own interests. This was not apparent to the court when the appointment was made. �At that time there was a contest for the office of receiver- ship between the stockholders, some favoring Mr. Martin, others Mr. Bailey. The former was appointed. I do not find he bas been guilty of any act of commission or omission since his apppointment calling for his removal for cause. ��� �