Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/250

 238 FEDEBAIi EKPOBTEE. �euit, and under that appointment, acting under the advice of counsel, he has brought suits at law against the etockholders. The only ques- tion is whether the suit which had been brought by Irons, and which h ad been amended to adapt it to the provisions of the act of June 30, 1876, can be pleaded in abatement to this suit at law which has been iristituted by the receiver under the authority or sanction of the comp- troller. After the filing of the original Irons bill the powers of the court under such a bill were materially enlarged by the act of con- gress just quoted. That bill was pending when this law took effect, and Irons undoubtedly had the right by amendment to make a case which would enable the court to administer these enlarged powers with which it had been clothed pcndente lite. Story, Eq. PI. 336; Mix V. Beach, 46 lU. 311. �It seems to me that there is no room to doubt that this stockholder's liability can be completely enforoed in the Irons case; and if it can, then I see no reason why the general rule that a debtor shall not be vexed by two suits in the same jurisdiction for the same cause of action is not clearly applicable. I may also say in the same connec- tion that I have great doubts whether the comptroller had any author- ity to appoint a receiver for a bank which was in voluntary liquida- tion, after the court had appointod a receiver and taken steps under a creditor's bill to enforce the stockholders' liability. The statute gives the comptroller authority to appoint a receiver in certain cases, and then in another section of the same statute provides expressly, where a bank has gone into voluntary liquidation and is in process of winding up its affairs, any crediter may enforce the liability of the stockholder by a creditor's bill; and if the comptroller had not acted and appointed a receiver for th© purpose of enforeing the stock- holders' liability, I have no doubt but what the action of the court supersedes the right of the comptroller to act in the premises, and gives the authority solely to the court to enforce the individual liability of the stockholders. �It cannot, I think, be maintained that eongress intended by the act of June 30, 1876, to leave the comptroller any authority over the assets of a national bank which has gone into voluntary liquidation under section 5220, after a court of competent jurisdiction had, under a creditor's bill, appointed a receiver and taken possession of the assets, and initiated proceedings to enforce the liability of stock- holders, becausethat would bring about a conflict between theofficers of the court and those of the comptroller. The grant of power to enforce the liability of the stockholders is plenary and ample, and I ��� �