Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/814

 GEISWOLD V. CENTBAL VEEMONT E. 00. 79& �As to the other question of jurisdiction, as the parties are citizens of different states the amount in dispute is large enough, and this court bas and is bound to take jurisdiction when a proper case ia brought, unless there is something in the nature of the case or situa- tion of the property that excludes the jurisdiction. It is argued for the defendants that those contracting the debts were still the receivers of the court; that they contracted the debts as saeh; that all the property from whioh the debts were to be paid was in their posses- sion a,8 receivers; that no other court eould reach the property to afford relief for non-payment ; and that the provision for relief in the order authorizing the loans, and made a part of the notes, excludes all other remedies. The jurisdiction of courts is given by the law and not by the parties, and can neither be conferred nor taken away by their mere consent or agreement. If the conditions prescribed by the law for jurisdiction exist, thejurisdiotion exists. The conditions prescribed for giving this court jurisdiction of the parties exist, and jurisdiction of the case must follow unless the subject is out of reach. Neither by the terms of the seourities as set forth in the bill, nor as shown in the plea, nor by the conditions of the proceedings, was any- thing to be dono by the court before the defendants could carry ont their obligation to set apart the earnings of the rolling stock as agreed and apply them to the satisfaction of these notes. They were at liberty to do it, and, so far as appears, were bound to do it. If there was a failure, the holders of the notes would have a right to apply to the courts of the land for relief, and they would not be de- prived of the right to apply to any one court because they had the right to apply to another. Those which were provided were provided for the purpose of giving the right to apply to them. There is noth- ing to prevent applying to this court, unless it may be that, as is argued, the property is in the course of administration of the state court. It is, however, well settled that the fact that property is being administered upon in state proceedings does not prevent citizens of other states from proceeding in the circuit courts of the United States to establish their claims and obtain relief if entitled to it. Suydam V. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172. In Shelby T. Bacon, 10 How. 56, the assets of an insolvent corporation were being administered, under the laws of Pennsylvania, by assignees accountable to the state court of common pleas. The assignees refused to allow the claim of the plaintiff, and he brought suit in the United States circuit court, to which the assignees pleaded the pend- ency of the state proceedings. After noticing some defects in the ��� �