, 1875-02-09
conf1,ct Of Jurisdiction Between State
and Federal Tribunals
Jndre Drunlmord Decides In
Favor Of the Former.
Il Obtained Jurisdiction First, it
Not the Property
Minor Cases Decided by the stare
Supreme Court.
Baruum Blake Makes His Appearance
Again:


TIE CASE OF TIE ro1T WAYNE MuSEiA Aoap'
M. Io1,o.;np /, ,r,s t,ociBion OF Judge Drum
Ahe to.,o"..s ~. ~ t0.x,otI W. ,trhn lrnrL Warno
rnond In tho caso o. uaS'o.u 's ns,a.,s ~, ,,,s
question of aonct Of inrisdlotion, bstvssn t, tho
u9n1. s9n' 81 s:e nort for % a sans ls
s IL viii 20 osSeon ssSn eened S ueds'h from tie
l'ms the oii Was nieo, esun 'n H. tan ,,,stor
tasea wnro on gttatlar points. There
Court, demurrer sustained thefoto, and
~. a.. u,.,ta 1,.I,, hrmc1,t IN tba eta.e Courts in
Tie dAtue aubIect matter tho Fedoral Coufk Aulo
u ssill ra,a;ncd Jurisdiction, though nothing
~" 49," ,,.,,as, H., In ,v,u omandad Tho
case Of the Union Trust Company Involved
III. ouestiou. md tho rulings in theso cases
clearly Showed What would probably bo the course
NJ Aha Cnrt II, hny similar future transaction.
~ Tho aet Ut tuns iB,2 4 va. rtoten that sn,
ss .ss @ vs,r ssa st n IL ssSSn 4 s
e9tt xo an'f 1Ssr 70 a to
ece!yer who W. 10 orr r;a9se in no sa Of ,s saae
aem 70 pSssssHq' x9 t,is s esse boyina recovered
Judgment .gain.t ths dsftn.t n th!. csqrt .h T.
;sass .s1 aua .auts 1s for uasu tan yes ID Apr
'!1s saEtie Va so' "
1874.
riLhn .I'a ,sstat,,.. "shn Al, III, ,r,,s1,,o,
IN this Court aaktnR ior tug @ asyar ~ "a Az.
If the corluraIon, aitu my ~ t,o,oI ~ rsrns4Ea
pointed ey the Court tat ne 10 III ,es ts
Assets III TUG eosppTsuoa ~ tm1s *, Jsh,s ~ ill.,
d sans 10 p4y ~, nS ssa sss for sch Scr p rhsr
fanuHs' Anu ai'o assas s,., III .t+v nd vnn cnm
relief ~ "oaIa eops''' WIN e4''''' al" e''3 WA
ff'enes' .nr,nrrr,
Was put In to thts hlll gu tue dtL ofJny, 1874 upon
the arstimsEt q lhe deIrss IN as1 H., ~
tla paluttaa to amend their b by ls 1T day Of Jsn-
nafy next ioHoW,ne tne SouIs ot,mA ": tii,se Ii
,sa ss. navss ss tte I sss spss 4s as sFs @
sate alone had tho rgh. to have s ,ans 1, lortse,
eNt the G3Hrt stated At to aasss ne 'naa nsa ~ % f.
ne rasss wsrs 81, snica ~ rs a T. e1s,ofe tns 0u was
Ne controversy T. made n tais ca sse pl M taat ~ te @
rares mh5 bare haa ~ flgn1 10 no ~ - sit ~ III
leeTsa M TIL Court provided Ill Inc 'S'oR' u
orr orr @ %mrouv npox WITCH THE STATUTE rnoceEps
s1s .ni saasiss N u @ tas
eonstitutes legal insolvency q tho corporstot aud
authorizes ~ .pleatlon for tas rrlie, m nameJ N r.
corporation to sha puysnert of its dcbts through
% q f I s n wnsh
haso been considered necessary, sre by tes torns Of
this statute ispinaea With foT example, tlo return OF
N IN sseassaso sa'ts viii % lo sn.on M asn by tho
Court On The 1ob Of Deeclntei. Wien tie demurrer
WAA aYertnleds
An AAEfDMENe
Wa nled to the bill On tie 31at q peeobef ns No
qusstion " i,iae tnt TUT tne bi te ane,le coz,
eHsut @ eaaitable fsef Jy ths appointment ot IL
ceirer Accordingly on The application Of tEg pla1n-
tins cnuEel, utter this amendment v3a hea lse-
ccvcr was atpointe1 Oh tho y! day o. January, 1877
WHO enare upeh ne performance OF his Duties ahn
j took posstss!on Of fhs property 81 tho ltiendah
Y under tho order 1nna y Tho uostrt Ihls porsetsiu
VAS taken ~ 1caseable ms,l.sr "iihot ~ nss OK
my force tha 1aftes ~an were III W. art,a osssa-
eiau M tim ttnb nro't the pfesentstiol Of the order
Of thg Court surrccrug tle property to tho ecefY-
A er pf this Court. -- -
!; Court shsra vas nothing In tao rlea,ss or On lilo
= !ss of ths Court tn su~ sat thsIe haa neen ~ ~:
i ober COURT. leseists hpp9net 70 take ehafge OF
sion Of the a4me tho fact being, horerer. thns
ARKcRivEn HAD nEEs PLACED IN rotBEssIoH
Court trlnr to he appointment u ito Recsiver y this
Coutt. and, II leng claimed that tic posscason
without consent Or actu!ttceuee Of tlo Kcceycrs Of