Source: https://openjurist.org/154/us/256/moran-v-sturges
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:47:51+00:00

Document:
This was a proceeding in the supreme court of the state of New York for a voluntary dissolution of Schuyler's Steam Towboat Company, in which Frank D. Sturges was appointed temporary receiver of the company. On petition of the receiver the court granted an order for an injunction restraining Michael Moran, Peter Cahill, Cynthia Cahill, and Jarvis Masters from proceeding upon libels in admiralty filed by them in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York; and this order was affirmed on appeal by the general term of the court, and by the court of appeals of the state. 32 N. E. 623, 136 N. Y. 169. The parties so enjoined brought error.
The Schuyler Steam Towboat Company was a corporation organized under the laws of New York. On July 31, 1891, the trustees of the company filed a petition in the supreme court of the state of New York, at Albany county, at chambers, for the voluntary dissolution of the company, under sections 2419 and 2423 of the Code of Civil Procedure of that state, and in their petition prayed for the appointment of a temporary receiver under section 2423, as amended, whose powers and duties were specified in section 1788. Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. 1891, pp. 643, 835, 836. The petition stated that the stock, effects, and other property of the corporation were not sufficient to pay the just amounts for which it was liable, nor to afford reasonable security to those who might deal with it, for the reasons that the corporation was indebted to the Holland Trust Company of New York, in a large sum of money, on a demand loan, payment whereof had been demanded, and that there were no available assets to meet the same; that the corporation had already defaulted upon certain claims set forth in the schedule attached, which were secured by notes which had been presented for payment, and payment refused for want of such assets; that 'other claims set forth in the schedule are either due, or rapidly becoming due, and that there is serious danger of the company's vessels, constituting the sole property of the said company, being libeled in the admiralty courts of the United States for such claims as constitute maritime liens, including the claims for services and supplies rendered to said vessels; that, in the event of said vessels being libeled and sold under a decree in admiralty, there would be little hope in realizing the value of said vessels on such sale, and the security of creditors and stockholders would be seriously imperiled;' that the assets must be realized by sale, and would be insufficient to pay all the claims in full, etc. Thereupon, the presiding judge (the attorney general of New York appearing, and consenting thereto) signed an order to show cause before a referee therein named, on November 16, 1891, why the company should not be dissolved, and by the same order appointed Frank D. Sturges temporary receiver of the property, 'with all the powers, and subject to all the duties, that are defined as belonging to temporary receivers appointed in an action in section 1788 of the Code.' It was further ordered 'that all creditors of said corporation be, and they are hereby, restrained and enjoined from bringing any actions against the said corporation for the recovery of a sum of money, and from taking any further proceedings in any action already commenced against the said corporation for such purpose.' A copy of the order was directed to be published at least once in each of the three weeks immediately preceding November 16, 1891, and that a copy be served upon each of the several persons specified in the schedule attached to the petition as a creditor or stockholder of the corporation. It was further ordered that before entering upon the duties of such receivership the said receiver should execute and acknowledge, in due form of law, a bond in the penal sum of $50,000, payable to the state of New York, with sureties. This order was entered, and the petition and accompanying papers filed in the office of the clerk of the court for Albany county in the forenoon of August 1, 1891. On the afternoon of August 1, 1891, which was Saturday, and on Monday, August 3, 1891, plaintiffs in error, Michael Moran and other co-owners of certain tugs, filed libels in admiralty in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York against certain steamboats, which were the property of the Schuyler Company. Process was issued under said libels to the United States marshal for that district, and on August 1st he seized and took into his possession the steamboats Niagara, Belle, and Syracuse, and affixed his notice of seizure thereto. On August 3d he seized and took into his custody the steamboats Vanderbilt, Jacob Leonard, and America, and affixed his notice of seizure thereto. On August 4, 1891, the receiver went on board the steamboats mentioned, and ascertained that the marshal was in possession thereof by his keepers, and he also found affixed to the boats the marshal's notice of seizure. The receiver applied to the state court, August 26th, and was duly autnorized, by order that day in that court entered, to contest said libels, or to take such other proceedings therein as might be advisable, and to use the funds in his hands for the purpose of giving such security as he might be able, as required in contesting the libels. In September, 1891, the receiver made a motion in the United States district court for an order directing the marshal to withdraw from the custody of the steamboats held under the admiralty process. The motion was denied on the ground that the question should be raised by answer to the libels, and leave was given to answer accordingly. The receiver availed himself of this permission, and appeared in one action against each vessel, and filed his answer contesting the jurisdiction of the admiralty court. He thereafter made an application to this court for a writ of prohibition to the district court, which was denied November 13, 1891.
On November 10th the receiver verified a petition addressed to the supreme court of the state of New York, in which he asked that plaintiffs in error herein might be enjoined from prosecuting the libels which they had filed in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York. Affidavits were attached to the petition, and on these papers and the preceding record one of the justices of the supreme court of the state entered an order November 11, 1891, that plaintiffs in error show cause at a special term of the court, November 14, 1891, why they should not be enjoined from taking any further proceedings on their libels in the United States courts, and in the mean time plaintiffs in error were enjoined and restrained from taking any further action under their libels, and from attempting any proceeding looking to the condemnation or sale of the steamboats, or any of them. Affidavits in opposition were presented by plaintiffs in error on the hearing of the order to show cause. Certain allegations were made in the petition and the moving affidavit of a knowledge by Moran, at the time he filed the first libel, that a receiver of the company had been appointed. These were denied, and Moran set forth under oath all his information and sources of information on the subject of the proceedings contemplated to dissolve the company, with the dates. The petition set forth that if libelants were permitted to prosecute their libels, and obtain decrees thereunder, and the steamboats were condemned and sold to satisfy the same, it would result in the vessels being sold for less than their value, and that the interest of the corporation and the general creditors thereof would be greatly sacrificed; that the vessels would bring a much larger price if sold as a fleet; that all creditors who were entitled to a preference by having liens, as well as all unsecured creditors, could be fully protected in this proceeding; that petitioner was advised that a larger portion of the claims for which libels had been filed did not constitute liens against the vessels, nor were libelants entitled to any preference for such portion of their claims. The petition further stated that under the order of August 26th the receiver had not sufficient funds to give security to contest all of the libels, and was wholly unable to give the security necessary to release the vessels from the marshal's custody, and for which reason, unless the libelants were restrained from prosecuting the libels, the receiver would be unable to prevent the condemnation and sale of the steamboats. The petition also set forth the receiver's application to the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York for an order directing the marshal of the district to surrender the custody of the steamboats; the denial thereof on the ground that the question of jurisdiction ought not to be decided upon motion; the leave to the receiver to answer the libels and contest the jurisdiction by answer; his appearance and answer in one action brought against each steamboat for the purpose of testing the jurisdiction of that court, he not being able, as he alleged, to furnish the security necessary in order to answer all the libels, which were some 40 in number. It was also averred that a motion had been made in the district court by Moran for the sale of the steamboats, and that the proceeds be deposited in court to await the result of the action; that the motion was opposed by the receiver, and withdrawn, as to the libels in which he had answered; that the motion had since been urged in the actions in which the receiver had not appeared and answered; and that the district court had intimated that the motion would be granted November 13th. Petitioner denied the jurisdiction of the district court over the steamboats, or any of them, at the time the libels were filed, and asserted that they were at that time in the custody of the state court, and not liable or subject to the attachment made by the marshal. On December 7, 1891, the special term of the supreme court granted the prayer of the receiver, and entered an order for an injunction enjoining plaintiffs in error from taking any further proceedings upon their libels in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York against the steamboat company, or against the steamboats of that company, except the Niagara, and from taking any action whatsoever under said libels, and in proceedings looking to the condemnation and sale of the steamboats, or any of them, except the Niagara.
Plaintiffs in error appealed from that order to the general term, by which it was affirmed; and they then carried the case to the court of appeals of the state of New York, which affirmed the order of the general term (136 N. Y. 169, 32 N. E. 623), and directed that its judgment be made the judgment of the supreme court, which was done December 6, 1892, whereupon this writ of error was sued out.
Jas. E. Carpenter, Jos. F. Mosher, and R. D. Benedict, for plaintiffs in error.
Jas. W. Eaton, for defendant in error.
This court declined to issue the writ of prohibition to the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York from proceeding upon these libels, because the alleged want of jurisdiction in the district court over the vessels was in course of litigation in that court on due process. In re Fassett, 142 U. S. 479, 484, 12 Sup. Ct. 295. The state court, upon the receiver's application, granted, in effect, the prohibition which we denied, and restrained libelants from prosecuting their libels. The question is whether it was within the power of the state court to do this.
Mr. Justice Story was of opinion that to the doctrine which permits the courts of one state, in proper cases, to enjoin persons within their jurisdiction from instituting legal proceedings in other states, or from further proceeding in actions already begun, there exists the exception that the state courts cannot enjoin parties from proceeding in the courts of the United States, nor the latter enjoin them from proceeding in the former courts,—an exception based upon peculiar grounds of municipal and constitutional law. Story, Eq. § 900; Story, Const. § 1757.
The provision of the act of 1793 was carried forward into section 720 of the Revised Statutes, with the addition of the words, 'except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy,' and under that exception restraint by injunction was held authorized in Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158, 5 Sup. Ct. 799.
In French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250. a cause had been properly removed from a state court to the circuit court of the United States, under the removal acts, and the circuit court had vacated a decree previously rendered in the state court, and dismissed the cause for want of equity; and it was held that the circuit court, having jurisdiction in personam over the parties, and having control over the cause, would not permit its jurisdiction to be trenched upon by any other tribunal, and might properly enjoin a party to the cause from proceeding beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court, in contravention of its decree. So in Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494, a plaintiff in a replevin suit brought in a state court had properly removed it to the federal court, and obtained a judgment there in his favor; but the state court proceeded to try the cause, and render judgment against the plaintiff, notwithstanding the removal, and an action was then brought in the state court upon the replevin bond. It was held that the court of the United States might enjoin the prosecution of such action, the relief being merely ancillary to the jurisdiction already acquired, and necessary to give effect to its own judgment.
And resort to injunction in proceedings in admiralty for the limitation of the liability of shipowners under an act of congress passed since the act of 1793, and expressly providing that after the institution of such proceedings 'all claims and proceedings against the owner shall cease' (Act March 3, 1851, c. 43, § 4; 9 St. 635; Rev. St. § 4285), was sustained in Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Manuf'g Co., 109 U. S. 578, 599, 600, 3 Sup. Ct. 379, 617.
These were all cases in which the issue of an injunction to a state court had been expressly or impliedly authorized by congress, as necessary to the effectual exercise by a court of the United States of its lawful jurisdiction over particular persons or things.
In Brooks v. Delaplaine, 1 Md. Ch. 354, the high court of chancery of Maryland dismissed a bill in equity because, at the time it was filed, a suit involving the same controversy was pending in the county court having concurrent jurisdiction. And see the observations of Mr. Justice Field in Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. 337, 355.
We decided in Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107, 10 Sup. Ct. 269, that a creditor, who is a citizen and resident of the same state as his debtor, against whom insolvent proceedings have been instituted in such state, is bound by the assignment of the debtor's property in such proceedings, and if he attempts to seize or attach the personal property of the debtor situated in another state, and embraced in the assignment, he may be restrained by injunction by the courts of the state in which he and the debtor reside. But we also held in Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348, 10 Sup. Ct. 843, that a creditor who was not a citizen or resident of the same state with his debtor might proceed in another state against property there, unaffected by insolvency proceedings in the state of the debtor's residence, if in accordance with the law of such other state. The debtor in that case was a citizen and resident of Massachusetts, where the insolvency proceedings were had. The creditor was a citizen of New Hampshire, and he attached property of the debtor in Louisiana, where the rule was that the transfer of the estate of an insolvent debtor by judicial operation is not binding upon the citizens and inhabitants of Louisiana, or any other state, except the state in which the insolvent proceedings have taken place,—at least, until the assignee has reduced the property to possession, or done what is equivalent thereto.
In Worthington v. Lee, 61 Md. 530, in a suit for specific performance of a covenant for the renewal of a lease, and for an injunction to restrain an action of ejectment for the recovery of the premises, the court of appeals of Maryland held (Alvey, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court) that so far as the parties were within the jurisdiction of the court, or bound by the decree, they might be restrained from taking any action at law in the courts of Maryland for the recovery of the property, but, as to those parties residing in other states, they could not be restrained by injunction from the state court from suing in the circuit court of the United States, by which their right so to sue must be determined.
It will be perceived that the principle invoked in such cases as Gaylord v. Railroad Co. and Insurance Co. v. Howell, supra, is that courts, for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction over persons and subject-matter, may enjoin parties who are amenable to their process and subject to their jurisdiction from interference with them in respect of property in their possession, or identical controversies therein pending, by subsequent proceedings, as to the same parties and subject-matter, in other courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
The proceeding in which, upon petition, the injunction under consideration was granted, was a proceeding in insolvency, in the state court, to dissolve and wind up the Schuyler Company, on its own application, under the statutes of New York in that behalf; and if it be conceded that that court could protect its exercise of jurisdiction over that subject-matter by enjoining creditors from prosecuting suits against the company on petition of the receiver in that suit, and without the bringing of a new suit for that purpose, it does not follow that it had power to grant the injunction in question.
If the state court could not restrain proceedings in the district court of the United States, if the jurisdiction of the state court over the libelants had not attached, or if the district court obtained jurisdiction over the vessels in priority to the state court, then this judgment must be reversed.
It is a rule of general application that, where property is in the actual possession of one court of competent jurisdiction, such possession cannot be disturbed by process out of another court. This doctrine has been repeatedly affirmed by this court. Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485, 498, 3 Sup. Ct. 327; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276, 4 Sup. Ct. 27; Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 176, 4 Sup. Ct. 355; Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587, 600, 7 Sup. Ct. 342. These cases were cited in Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 614, 13 Sup. Ct. 906, and the language of Mr. Justice Matthews in Covell v. Heyman was quoted, to this effect: 'The point of the decision in Freeman v. Howe, supra, is that when property is taken and held under process, mesne or final, of a court of the United States, it is in the custody of the law, and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court from which the process has issued, for the purposes of the writ; that the possession of the officer cannot be disturbed by process from any state court, because to disturb that possession would be to invade the jurisdiction of the court by whose command it is held, and to violate the law which that jurisdiction is appointed to administer; that any person, not a party to the suit or judgment, whose property has been wrongfully, but under color of process, taken and withheld, may prosecute, by ancillary proceedings, in the court whence the process issued, his remedy for restitution of the property or its proceeds while remaining in the control of that court; but that all other remedies to which he may be entitled, against officers or parties, not involving the withdrawal of the property or its proceeds from the custody of the officer or the jurisdiction of the court, he may pursue in any tribunal, state or federal, having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter. And, vice versa, the same principle protects the possession of the property while thus held, by process issuing from state courts, against any disturbance under process of the courts of the United States, excepting, of course, those cases wherein the latter exercise jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the supremacy of the constitution and laws of the United States.' Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473, 13 Sup. Ct. 1008.
In Buck v. Colb ath, 3 Wall. 334, 341, 345, the same rule was referred to as settled, and Mr. Justice Miller said: 'A departure from this rule would lead to the utmost confusion, and to endless strife between courts of concurrent jurisdiction deriving their powers from the same source; but how much more disastrous would be the consequences of such a course, in the conflict of jurisdiction between courts whose powers are derived from entirely different sources, while their jurisdiction is concurrent as to the parties and the subject-matter of the suit. This principle, however, has its limitations; or, rather, its just definition is to be attended to. It is only while the property is in possession of the court, either actually or constructively, that the court is bound or professes to protect that possession from the process of other courts. Whenever the litigation is ended, or the possession of the officer or court is discharged, other courts are at liberty to deal with it according to the rights of the parties before them, whether those rights require them to take possession of the property or not. The effect to be given in such cases to the adjudication of the court first possessed of the property depends upon principles familiar to the law; but no contest arises about the mere possession, and no conflict but such as may be decided without unseemly and discreditable collisions.' It was further said: 'It is not true that a court, having obtained jurisdiction of a subject-matter of a suit, and of parties before it, thereby excludes all other courts from the right to adjudicate upon other matters having a very close connection with those before the first court, and in some instances requiring the decision of the same questions, exactly. In examining into the exclusive character of the jurisdiction of such cases, we must have regard to the nature of the remedies, the character of the relief sought, and the identity of the parties in the different suits.' Hence, it was held that an action of trespass might be sustained in the state court against the marshal for levying on property not belonging to the defendant in his writ, although his possession could not have been interfered with.
The reason was that his possession was the possession of the court, and, pending the litigation, no other court, of merely concurrent jurisdiction, could be permitted to disturb that possession, while the action of trespass constituted no such interference.
In this and like cases the question has arisen in respect of courts of concurrent jurisdiction as to parties and subject-matter.
But the question in the case at bar arises in respect of the state court and a district court of the United States, whose cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is, under the constitution, and by the ninth section of the judiciary act of 1789 (reproduced in section 711, Rev. St.), exclusive. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank of Boston, 6 How. 390; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine, Id. 555; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 580; Johnson v. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 397, 7 Sup. Ct. 254; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 12, 13 Sup. Ct. 498. As said by Mr. Justice Miller: 'It must be taken as the settled law of this court that wherever the district courts of the United States have original cognizance of admiralty causes, by virtue of the act of 1789, that cognizance is exclusive, and no other court, state or national, can exercise it, with the exception, always, of such concurrent remedy as is given by the common law.' The Hine, 4 Wall. 568. The act saves to suitors, in all cases, 'the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;' that is, not a remedy in the commonlaw give it;' that is, not a remedy in the common-law are not compelled to seek such remedy, if it exist, nor can they, if entitled, be deprived of their right to proceed in a court of admiralty; and the state courts have no authority to hear and determine a suit in rem to enforce a maritime lien. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 644; The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19, 27.
A statutory proceeding to wind up a corporation is not a common-law remedy, and a maritime lien cannot be enforced by any proceeding at common law. These libelants were entitled to have their causes tried in the court of admiralty, according to the rules and practice of admiralty; and that right could not be taken away from them, nor would the decree or judgment of the state court be pleadable in bar to their libels. If, then, the receiver had first taken actual possession of these vessels, and sold them, such sale would not have cut off maritime liens, and the right to have them enforced; and while it may be true that the state courts, exercising equitable jurisdiction, might undertake, in the distribution of property, to save the rights of holders of maritime liens, yet it is certain that those courts would have no power, by a sale under statute, to destroy their liens, unless they had voluntarily submitted themselves to that jurisdiction.
As already pointed out, it was held in Buck v. Colbath, supra, that whenever the litigation in the court where the property is first seized has ended, or the possession of such court or its officers is discharged, then other courts are at liberty to deal with it according to the rights of the parties before them, whether those rights require them to take possession of the property or not. This view is illustrated by many decisions in the district courts, and was applied by Mr. Justice Blatchford (then district judge) in The Sailor Prince, 1 Ben. 234, Fed. Cas. No. 12,218.
A similar question arose in The Caroline, 1 Low. 173, Fed. Cas. No. 2,419, and it was held that it was not a good defense to a petition that freight might be brought into the admiralty court to answer the exigency of suits for mariners' wages and materials, and that the consignee, before the libels were filed, was summoned as trustee or garnishee of the shipowner in a court of common law; that the courts of common law of Massachusetts had no power to adjust maritime liens upon a fund attached under the foreign attachment law of that state, and the consequence of giving priority to such an attachment might be the destruction of the liens; that a court of common law would be bound to guard against this consequence by discharging the supposed trustee, or by waiting till the liens were adjusted; and that the district court might proceed to adjust the liens, and might order the freight to be brought in for that purpose; and Lowell, J., said: 'The decision in Taylor v. Carryl, as explained in Freeman v. Howe and in Buck v. Colbath, does not operate to defeat the paramount maritime liens, but only to delay their enforcement, because the sheriff can sell only the right of the shipowner, subject to those liens; the practical effect of which I find to be that the sheriff usually waives his possession when libels are filed for maritime liens, because his title becomes of little or no market value. So that we have come back pretty much to the practice which prevailed before the leading case was decided.' The views of Judge Blatchford in respect of the attachment of credits, and thereby the destruction of maritime liens, were fully concurred in. And see Clifton v. Foster, 103 Mass. 233; Eddy v. O'Hara, 132 Mass. 56.
In The E. L. Cain, 45 Fed. 367, the sheriff had attached a tug, and turned it over to a receiver appointed by the state court. After that the marshal, under process upon libels filed for seamen's wages and supplies, seized the vessel; but the district court held that, the tug 'having been taken possession of by process of the state court, and by that court placed in the custody of the receiver, it could not be held by any process out of this court until discharged by order of the state court.' And Simonton, J., said: 'So, for the present, this court can proceed no further. But the liens set up in this court are maritime liens, which cannot be adjudicated or passed upon in the state court. Over these liens the jurisdiction of this court is exclusive. They will be protected in this court.' The cause was continued until the state court had ordered a sale, or in any other mode released its custody, of the tug. To the same effect, Brown, J., in The James Roy, 59 Fed. 784.
In The Elexena, 53 Fed. 359, section 2186 of the Code of Virginia, providing that the sale of a vessel forfeited by proceedings in a state court for violating the oyster laws of the state 'shall vest in the purchaser a clear and absolute title,' was held by Hughes, J., inoperative to divest maritime liens of innocent parties, attaching before the arrest of the vessel, and that the vessel might be subsequently seized in the hands of the purchaser, and subjected to such liens, by proceedings in the admiralty courts.
A maritime lien is not divested by a forfeiture for a breach of municipal law (St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat. 409), nor by a sale to a bona fide purchaser without notice (The Chusan, 2 Story, 456, Fed. Cas. No. 2,717; The Bold Buccleugh, 3 W. Rob. Adm. 229, 7 Moore, P. C. 267). It is jus in re; and 'it has been settled, so long that we know not its beginning, that a suit in the admiralty to enforce and execute a lien is not an action against any particular person to compel him to do or forbear anything, but a claim against all mankind,—a suit in rem, asserting the claim of the libelant to the thing, as against all the world.' The Young Mechanic, 2 Curt. 404, 412, Fed. Cas. No. 18,180. See, also, The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 13 Sup. Ct. 498.
We think it entirely clear that, as a state court is without jurisdiction to enforce maritime liens, so it is incapable of displacing them, and therefore, though, under the rule laid down in Taylor v. Carryl, the possession by the state court of property subject to such liens will not be disturbed, yet that court can only deal with the property subject thereto, and when its jurisdiction has determined the admiralty courts may proceed.
But, upon the facts disclosed in this record, was the district court required to stay its hand until the termination of the proceedings in the state court? It is admitted that the receiver never took actual possession of the vessels, and that he did not qualify until after the marshal had taken such possession under the libels; but it is said that as his appointment was made on July 31st, before the libels were filed, when his bond was executed, approved, and filed in the office of the clerk of the court for Albany county, his title to the property related back to the time of his appointment, and that he had constructive possession as of that date, which constructive possession overreached the possession of the marshal.
The contention is not only that the title to these vessels vested in the receiver as of July 31st, and that, in such a case as this, constructive is the equivalent of actual possession, but that, although the receiver did not qualify until after the seizure by the marshal, he thereupon became constructively possessed of the vessels as of July 31st, and the jurisdiction of the district court was thereby ousted. But, if jurisdiction had attached, it would not be defeated, even by the withdrawal of the property for the purposes of the state court; and, moreover, the doctrine of relation has no application. As between two courts of concurrent and co-ordinate jurisdiction, having like jurisdiction over the subject-matter in controversy, the court which first obtains jurisdiction is entitled to retain it without interference, and cannot be deprived of its right to do so because it may not have first obtained physical possession of the property in dispute. But where the jurisdiction is not concurrent, and the subjectmatter in litigation in the one is not within the cognizance of the other, while actual or even constructive possession may, for the time being, and in order to avoid unseemly collision, prevent the one from disturbing such possession, yet, where there is neither actual nor constructive possession, there is no obstacle to proceeding, and action thus taken cannot be invalidated by relation. That doctrine is resorted to only for the advancement of justice, and, under these state statutes, is adopted to defeat fraudulent, unwarranted, and unjust dispositions of the debtor's property, and to accomplish just and equitable ends. Herring v. Railroad Co., 105 N. Y. 340, 377, 12 N. E. 763.
At the time these libels were filed, and the marshal seized the property, it had not been developed whether or when the receiver would or might give the security required, and enter upon the discharge of his duties, and he had neither actual nor constructive possession.
The jurisdiction of the state court over the subject-matter of the winding up of the corporation and the distribution of its assets did not embrace the disposition of the claims of the libelants upon these vessels, nor were they, as holders of maritime liens, represented by the attorney general when he assented to the order of July 31st, as mere creditors of the Schuyler Company were. The adjudication by that order may have so operated on the title, in respect of the parties to that suit, as to place the property constructively in the custody of the law as of that date, but not as to all persons, and for all purposes. Under the circumstances, we are unable to accept the conclusion that, simply by the institution of the winding-up proceeding, property subject to liens over which that court could not exercise jurisdiction in invitum was placed in such a situation, in respect of liability to being ultimately brought within the custody of the court, that the district court could not obtain jurisdiction for the purpose of ascertaining and enforcing those liens in respect of which its jurisdiction was exclusive. It appears to us that the district court violated no rule of comity, nor any other rule, in entertaining the libels.
The title and the right of possession, as between the receiver and the creditors of the Schuyler Company, may have vested as of July 31st; but this could not operate to divest a jurisdiction, not concurrent, to the exercise of which no actual impediment existed at the time it was invoked. As has been seen, maritime liens are incumbrances placed on vessels by operation of law; and neither the death nor the insolvency of the owner can divest or extinguish them, or transfer jurisdiction over them to courts for the settlement of the estates of decedents or insolvents, although, for the purposes merely of such settlement, these are the appropriate tribunals. In the orderly administration of justice, the representatives of such estates should apply to the court which alone has cognizance to ascertain and enforce these exceptional interests in the thing itself, which accompany it wherever it goes, and into whosesoever hands it comes, and which cannot be displaced by the action of other courts in invitum.
We are of opinion that the state court had no jurisdiction in personam over the libelants, as holders of maritime liens, when the libels were filed; that the question of jurisdiction was, as the case stood, one for the district court to decide in the first instance; that the district court had jurisdiction; and that the judgment under review was, in effect, an unlawful interference with proceedings in that court.
Believing that the rule thus stated is the one to be applied in this case, I hold that, when the petition in insolvency was filed, the corporation, the owner and possessor of the property, surrendered it to the state court, and by no subsequent proceedings in any other court could that possession be disturbed.
I cannot agree that the respective jurisdiction of state and federal courts is to be determined by a scramble between sheriff and marshal for possession.
For these reasons, while I concur in most of the reasoning of the opinion, I am constrained to dissent from the judgment.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice WHITE concurs in the foregoing views.

References: § 900
 § 1757
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 4285
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.