Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/473

 46® FEDERAL REPORTER. �ment, convey ail the aasets to Eelfe, for the purposes of ad- ministration, under the insolvent laws of Missouri. He is under a bond of $100,000 in Missouri for the faithful perform- ance of these duties, and is paid an officiai salary in lieu of ail compensation. �The plaintiSs in this case — citizens of Tennessee — olaim to be creditors of the corporation, whioh was a mutual con- cern, and are ail policy holders, one only of the polioies being matured by a death loss. It seems to have been a regulation of the Company to lend its funds arising from the business in any stat« upon mortgages within that state, so that there are within this district some $25,000 or more of loans to citizens of Tennessee, secured by notes and mortgages given upon lands situated here. These plaintiffs insist by their bill that they have a prior claim on these Tennessee assets, setting up an agreement that they should stand as security for their pol- icies, and otherwise ; that by the general law they have a right to be satisfied before these Tennessee funds can be removed to Missouri, The bill seeks to wind up the corporation under the Tennessee insolvent laws, and may be called a general creditors' bill for that purpose, asking the appointment of a receiver. It was filed in the state chancery court ; the corpo- ration, Eelfe, and the Tennessee debtors being made parties defendant. An injunction was granted restraining Eelfe from exercising his functiong in this state, or collecting these assets, and an attachment was issued impounding them for the satisfaction of plaintiffs' claims. �The corporation and Eelfe answered, denying the equitiea and claims of the plaintiffs to priority, or to a separàte admin- istration here, and setting up Eelfe's title under the laws of Missouri, and the assignment made to him. Having an- swered, they removed the cause to this court, and thereupon moved to dissolve the injunction and discharge the attach- ment. The plaintiffs, having failed on a motion to remand for want of jurisdiotion, moved for a receiver. �On the argument of these motions it occurred to me that the questions were of too grave a character to be determined in so preliminary a manner, and should abide the hearing, upon ����