Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/850

 838 FEDERAL REPORTER. �of the statute ; nor is it seen how the corporation or plaintiffs would be profited pending this litigation if the assignee is enjoined from acting. It must suffice that, on the record, it Bufficiently appears that this court has no power to grant the provisional injunction. �The following are the principal cases cited by counsel, wMch have been fuUy examined and considered: Diggs v. Walcott, 4 Cranch, 179; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall, 719; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254; Chaffin v. St. Louis, 4 Dillon, 19; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; High on Injunc- tions, 109, 110, 111; Erwin v. Emory, 7 How. 172; Suydam V. Boyd, 14 Pet. 67 ; Union Bank v. Jolly, 18 How. 503 ; Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 10 ; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425 ; Toudley y. Lavender, 21 Wall. 283; Andrews v. Smith, 5 Fbd. Eep. 883; Jamiary v. Powell, 29 Mo. 241. �MgCeaey, C. J., (concurrincj .) The rule is that no injunc- tion shall be granted by any court to interfere with the pos- session, control, or disposition of property which is in the hands of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The rea- son for the rule is that its disregard would lead to conflicts between courts of equal authority, and recognizing no com- mon arbiter, which conflicts might lead to the most serious and disastrouB consequences. The great importance of the strict observance of this rule in the administration of justice in our state and federal courts has always been recognized in both forums, and for reasons which at once suggest them- selves as very cogent. �I am disposed, so far as I am concerned, to uphold it fuUy, and, even in cases of doubt, to lean towards the adoption of that view which cannot possibly lead to conflict. The fact in the present case is that the property is now in the custody of the state courts. The possession of the receiver is the possession of the court itself, and the disposition of the prop- erty by the receiver is a matter to be ordered by the court, which has a perfeet right to dispose of it as it pleases. That court has control not only of the property, but aifio oE the receiver and the assignee, and in the exercise of the un- ��� �