Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/215

 LEVI V. COLUMBIA LIFE INS. 00, 207 �that on February 23, 1877, a preliminary injunction was issued; that on August 7, 1877, Alexander was appointed temporary receiver, and that on October 17, 1877, said cor- poration was dissolved by a decree entered in said proceedings. �The other averments in the return pertain to what bas been done under said decree towards winding up the affaira of said corporation, among which it is stated that plaintiff's attorney presented the demand in question for allowance by the referee as a preferred claim, etc. �The suit in this court, which ripened into a judgment, was brought after proceedings had been commenced in the state court to wind up the corporation named, and although judg- ment was rendered on plaintiff's demand, before the decree of dissolution was had, yet the decree operated to put in custodia lerjis of the state tribunals ail the assets of the corporation, as existing on the day of petition, filed. Hence, the judg- ment of the plaintiff, though valid and subsisting, must be treated like any other demand duly proved, subject to be allowed as such, on presentation to the referee in the state court. This court cannot interfere with the jurisdiction and proceedings of the state court and its olScers, who are duly iUlministering the assets of said dissolved corporation. �It may be very difficult to reconcile the several decisions of the United States supreme court concerning such questions, especially in the light of the two cases of Payne v. Hook ; yet the ourrent of its rulings, and the general principle to be applied, is clear, viz. : that whatever court first obtains juris- diction of the res, or assets of a defendant, must proceed there- with uninterrupted by any other tribunal. Were this not so unseemly conflicts and constant discord would resuit. �The question raised here is not a new one. Twenty odd years ago the circuit and district courts of the United States had to meet the question, and they determined with general uniformity that where the res or property was in the custody or possession of the state tribunals they could not be inter- fered with, Hence, some twenty-five years ago, cases went op from Michigan and Pennsylvania, in which that question was presented to the supreme court of the United States, ��� �