Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/517

 united states v. wickersham. 505 �United States v. Wickersham. (Circuit Court, W. D. Tennessee. February 24, 1882.) �1. IlECEtVETI — PliOPERTT IN POSSESSION OV THE UnITED StATES — DEFKNDANT'B �Ci.AiM wHEN United States is Plaintiff— Juiusdiction. �Where the United States fliod a bill in the circuit court to forfait a lease of Jands belonging to theni, and for a receiver, and by consent of parties the United States was placed in possession of the property under a decree containing cer- tain stipulations as to the riglits of the parties in the improvements and the rents to be collected by the United States, Iield, that the jurisdiction of the court ovcr the property was ousted by the surrender of possession to the United States, and the court could, after that surrender, neitlier appoint a receiver on application of defendant, nor enforce against the United States any claim arising from the stipulations of the decree. And it is the duty of the court to decline iurisdiction on its own motion. �2. Samb — JtjRiSDiciioN — Ltability op United States— Wkongpul Acts of �Agents. �The United States is not liable to a defendant in the circuit court for the wrongful conduct of its agents in the management of the property in contro- versy, there being no jurisdiction to grant relief. �3. Same — EsTOPPKi. — Conduct op the Agents and Attornets of the United �States. �The fact that the agent of the treasury department and the United States district attorney treated the suit as if the court still had jurisdiction over the property, and it were in the hands of a receiver, and that orders by the court pertaining to his accounts were eutcred, does not estop the United States orgive the court jurisdiction. �4. Same — Tiemedt op Defendant. �The defendant may have a remedy by application to the court of claims, or to oongress, or to the executive department in charge of the property, to grant whatever relief he is entitled to in the premises, but not by any motion or other aggressive proceedings for affirmative relief in the suit originally brought by the United States to enforce their claims against him. �In Equity. �The United States being the owner of a lot in the city of Memphis, leased it to the defendant for a term of five years at an annual rent of $2,100. The defendant erected thereon cei'tain brick buildings, which remain on the land, and one of the covenants of the lease permitted them to be removed at the termination of the lease. The defendant being in default in the payment of rent, the United States on June et, 1869, before the termination of the lease, brought an action of ejectment in this court for the premises, and on the same day filed the bill in this cause to sequester the rents, to enjoin the defendant from collecting them, for the appointment of a receiver, and for gen- erai relief. On May 6, 1873, the United States reeovered judgment in the ejectment suit, "subject to defendant's right to remove the ��� �