The New York herald., 1870-03-03
Gurrb STATES DISTINCT guus1.

Tho CINrk.BtnlDgor Casc-lmp0r.Ans Deet.
slon--The Ruling Of Judge Mcslnn us to the
Power and Jurisdiction Of shs Superior
COars Sustained.
Before Jadga Matehford.
m M0 Aotter or abraham B. ClGyG ana Abraham
6snsnveT--Judge Blxtchford. IN lengthy decision,
wpposts tine views taken OF the jurisdiction OF the
superior Court bv Judge McCunn who first had judi
Ual cognlzancc OF the whole subject OF litigation.
Judge Blatchford says:-The questions involved
were considered by this court IN the case
Ia re. Nogel Second Bankrupt Xes. .ister, 1881.
Wnen properly Is lawfully placed IN the
custody OF . receiver ny the court winch appoints
tectson ana conro Of Bucn coat for tue time being
esu no other court has right 20 interfere with
supervsorv conlr over Inc court whose process nss
MIST taken possession. or some superior jurisdiction
70 tne premises. tpeck vs.. Jennesa, Howard, 6l2
0oi WAliams W Benedict, luld, l07-li2; WIswan
w.. sampson, Ia ibid, 5z.e6; Peale vs. Pnlpps, Ia
d S0SlA; Taylor ys. Caryl, ~ rolo, 5s3, 5J:-597;
Freeman vs. Howe, "A ibid $50; Buck vs.. Coluath,
WaIlace. 334 lii the present posture OF thls case
docs not appear tnat TINS court has such superior
Nr,salctlon ia the premises or sucn supervisory
ContrOl over the State court IN respect TO
the properly i0 question to authorize
70 take away from the State court the possession
0l SUCH property or 10 enJoin the receivers from
furtaer interfering with suc6 property. lnls Court
whl always be seduloas to enforce its Just powers,
Das II VIII not deinand from any Otner tr Dunal any
setD8 winch 1t would not be willing 10 concede itself
under ike circumstances In the case Teierred TO-
In re. Voge-lt compelled the restitution TO an
assignee III bankruptcy OF property winch had been
taAen away by process VI a state court from the
cuakody of this court, and It's decision affirmed
~ the Circuit Court on review. The prluciple on
which such restitution was enforced woula authorize
tho state court the present. coMpe rcstiL-
son TO the receivers such property as this court
anonld take away BY force from the custody of such
State court and tMs mighL Lnen retaliate and
sho CONFUSION and endless sInie would ensue when
arc 80 lorciDiy characterized by The supreme Court
In the opinion delivered ia the Of Buck w. Col
hath before cited.
The application IL denied.
Judge Complaining Thnf He Has Nothing
to DO Through tue Negligence Of Counsel.
Judge Blatcnlord sat yesterday, and called over the
admiralty calendar No case was ready Tor trial.
Counsel Tor plalntin in several cases were willing TO
30 on, but COUNSELLOR defendant not quite pre-
pared, or nad other engagements or their witnesses
were CUT OF town or not fn attendance, and what,
therefore, couiu De douef Some cases were dXei
Tor Jays In next week, the Judge reinarslng tnat
huudreds OF matters were pressing and case Tor
hEn ~ try. Members Of the oar observed tnat they
had been thrown out OF Lneir calculations by sup
posing tnat the Judge would have ueen engaged ia
the Fullerton case nut the Judge replied tnaL tney
should not assume that the court would not siE
regularly every day i0r the next five weeks Ii
counsel had read the HERALD they woulu have
aScertalnsd thar ON Inc order ior the postponenenI
OF the Fullerton case the Court notified tnat adlni-
ralty trials would 90 proceeded WIN.