Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/853

 ANDRBÎVS V. SMITH. 841 �ticated, would confer no power upon the court, as such, to take jurisdiction of questions arising under it, -without original proceedings in rogular course. Myers v. Johnston, Sup. Court Ala. cited 50 Vt. 671, and other cases there cited and ap- proved. So jurisdiction of the court of chancery over the lit- igation in this cause cannot be made ont from that pro- vision in the decree alone. Proceedings have been carried forward in that cause under that provision in that decree, and doubtless ail who may have participated in those proceedings are bound by the results of them, and perhaps those taking part in the proceedings still pending have no right to seek any other jurisdiction for relief touching the same matters. But these orators do not appear, either from the allegations of the plea or by the proceedings themselves, to have ever become parties to these proceedings. That the state court may have jurisdiction of some ôf the parties to this suit, con- cerning the property involved, for some purposes, would not necessarily exclude this court from cognizance of the same parties in a suit relating to the same property for other pur- poses. This is not contrary to Mallett v. Dexter, 1 Curtis, 178, cited for the defendants, andis in accordance withmany other cases. In that case the accounts of an adœinistrator were pending in the state court which appointed him. The plaintiffs there brought that Mil in the federal circuit court to settle the same accounts for the same purpose. Jurisdiction by the federal court was denied because of that identity. �In Erwin v. Emery, 7 How. 172, while an estate was in process of settlement in a state court, proceedings to foreclose a mortgage upon it were taken in the federal circuit court. Objection was made that the state court had arst acquired jurisdiction over the property, and ail claims upon it, to the exclusion of the other court ; but the objection was overruled. �In Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67, it was held that pro- ceedings for the settlement of an insolvent estate, in a stat© probate court, before commissioners of which ail claims were by the state law to be proved, would not prevent a suit in favor of a claimant, a citizen of another state, against the administrator in the circuit court of the United States, Mr. ����