Federal courts exercise superior jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States.56 Where a Federal court has appointed a receiver, in a case where a receiver was previously appointed by a State court, the proper remedy is an application by the State receiver, to the Federal court, for the delivery of the possession of the property to the applicant.57 It has been said that where a State court has, by proper process, secured the custody or dominion of specific property, which it is one of the objects of a subsequent suit in the Federal court between the same parties to subject to its decree, the latter suit should not be stayed or dismissed, but should proceed as far as may be without creating a conflict concerning the possession or disposition of the property, and that then, if need be, it shall be stayed until the proceedings in the State court have been completed or the time for their termination has elapsed.58 The doctrine does not apply to a case where the State Court is acting in an administrative and not in a judicial capacity, such as proceedings in a county court directing the presentation of county warrants for redemption, cancellation, reissue, or classification.59

§ 53. Property covered by insolvent assignments. It has been held: that the possession of an assignee appointed by an insolvent in a voluntary assignment is not the possession of a State court, although in pursuance of a State statute he has filed a bond and a petition for the settlement of his accounts, praying also for instructions concerning his administration, and that the Federal court consequently could appoint a receiver of property thus assigned; 1 that where a State court has, by docket

56 Tefft v. Sterberg, 40 Fed. 2, 6, per Speer, J., eiting Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 176, 28 L. ed. 390. But see infra, § 59.

57 Texas v. Palmer, C. C. A., 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 316, 158 Fed. 705; aff'd Palmer v Texas, 212 U. S. 118; Waters-P. S. Oil Co. v. Texas, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 162, 103 S. W. 836; State v. Port Royal & Augusta R. R. Co., 45 S. C. 470, 23 S. E. 363; People v. New York City Ry. Co., 57 Misc. (N. Y.) 114.

58 Mound City Co. v. Castleman, C. C. A., 187 Fed. 921.

59 Falls City Const. Co. v. Monroe County, 208 Fed. 482.

$53. 1 Powers et al. 1. Blue Grass B. & L. Ass 'n 86 Fed. 705; under Kentucky statute; Watson v. Bettman, 88 Fed. 825; under New York statute. Cf. Adler v. Ecker, 2 Fed. 126; The James Roy, 59 Fed. 781; George T. Smith, Co., Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237; Swofford Bros. D. G. Co. v. Mills, 86 Fed.

ing the proceeding, taken possession of property covered by an insolvent's assignment, a Federal court may entertain a bill to establish a claim against it, but it may not attempt by process against the property to enforce such claim after it has been established, nor appoint a receiver,3 and that a vessel in the possession of an assignee, appointed by a voluntary assignment under the insolvent law of Minnesota, cannot be taken from him by a marshal of the United States upon a libel in rom to enforce a claim against the insolvent. Where a State statute provided, that, on the making by a judgment debtor of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors within ten days after the levy of an execution on his property, such levy should be dissolved and the property turned over to the assignee; it was held to apply to a levy under a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States, and that the assignee might apply to the Federal court for the release of the levy by a proceeding in the nature of a supplemental bill in equity.5 Where the trustee, under an insolvent assignment, had failed to claim property until after a levy thereupon under a judgment of the Federal court; on his intervention in the Circuit Court of the United States, a decree was entered setting aside the levy, upon his payment of the costs thereof and filing an order of the State court authorizing him to take possession.

§ 54. Property in the custody of State courts of probate. A Federal court cannot direct the distribution of all the assets held by an executor or administrator, at least so far as to affect the rights of the creditors, legatees or next of kin, who are citizens of the same State as the defendants, and who have no right to seek the Federal jurisdiction. It has been held that a Federal

556; under Wyoming statute, sustaining an attachment by the Federal court; Peale v. Phipps, 14 How. 368, 14 L. ed. 459. Contra, Val. Blatz Brewing Co. v. Walsh, 84 Fed. 5; under Minnesota statute.

2 Edwards v. Hill, C. C. A., 59 Fed. 723, 726; under Kansas statute.

3 Geilinger v. Philippi, 133 U. S. 246, 257, 33 L. ed. 614, 617; under

Louisiana statute: Val. Blatz Brewing Co. v. Walsh, 84 Fed. 5; under Minnesota statute.

4 The J. G. Chapman, 62 Fed. 939. 5 Brochon v. Wilson, C. C. A., 91 Fed. 617; under Wisconsin statute. 6 Geilinger v. Philippi, 133 U. S. 246, 257, 33 L. ed. 614, 617; under Louisiana statute.

$54. 1 Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 47 L. ed. 867. Cf. Hale v.

6

court of equity cannot entertain a bill by a legatee, to compel an accounting by the surviving pårtner, and a payment of the balance due by him to the executors for distribution, when the executors and the survivor are citizens of the same state; 2 unless an executor is the surviving partner. Nor issue an execution against the estate of a decedent; nor compel the repayment, by a legatee, of a surcharge which he has received under a decision of a State orphans' court; 5 nor entertain a bill to set aside a sale of stocks, made by executors, and to take the proceeds out of their possession; nor a bill by an unsecured creditor, even a judgment creditor," to compel a general accounting by the executor and a distribution of the estate; nor it has been held a bill a compel any accounting by the executor when a previous suit or proceeding for such an accounting is pending in the State court although the latter complainant was not a party to such former suit or proceeding; 10 nor to compel an executor to file a bond,11 nor to require him to deliver funds to an administrator appointed in another State; 12 nor, while the administration of the State court of probate is pending, a bill by the surviving husband of a decedent or his grantee against her administrator, to quiet the title to the husband's share of her separate estate; 13 nor in the absence of fraud to set aside the orders of the State Court of Probate; 14 15 nor a bill to prevent or to set aside the probate of a will,16 unless the State law authorizes such a bill

Tyler, 115 Fed. 833, 839; Hastings v. Douglass, 249 Fed. 378; Smith v. Jennings, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 49.

2 Moore v. Fidelity Trust Co., 134 Fed. 489; s. c., C. C. A., 138 Fed. 1. 3 Am. Baptist Home Mission Society v. Stewart, 192 Fed. 976.

4 Williams v. Benedict, 8 How. 107, 112, 12 L. ed. 1007, 1008; Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536.

5 Chandler v. Pomeroy, 87 Fed. 262, 266.

6 Jordan v. Taylor, 98 Fed. 643. 7 Johnson v. Johnson, 225 Fed.

413.

8 Byers v. McCauley, 149 U. S. 609, 13 Sup. Ct. 906, 37 L. ed. 867;

McCauley v. McCauley, 202 Fed. 280.

9 McCauley v. McCauley, 202 Fed.

280.

10 Thiel Detective Service Co. v. McClure, 130 Fed. 55.

11 Field v. Camp, 193 Fed. 160. 12 Watkins v. Eaton, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 384.

13 Thorpe v. Sampson, 84 Fed. 63. 14 Northrup v. Browne, C. C. A., 204 Fed. 224.

15 Miller v. Weston, C. C. A., 199 Fed. 104.

16 Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485, 27 L. ed. 1006; Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 110, 50 L. ed. 101, 111. It has been held that this ean

to be filed in a proceeding inter partes, which is not a mere continuation of the probate proceedings. 17

In proper cases, the Federal Courts have jurisdiction over suits for the partition of the real estate of a deceased ancestor," for the construction of a will,19 or for the appointment of a receiver to protect the estate of a decedent until a temporary or permanent administrator or executor has received letters from the Court of Probate.20 But not after temporary administrators have been appointed although it is contended that such appointment was fraudulent and illegal.21

The Federal Courts have jurisdiction in proper cases to de

cide questions relating to the interests of heirs, devisees or legatces, in trusts, which may be determined without interfering with probate or assuming a general administration.22 Where a State court of probate had established the right of a devisee to land in another State it was held that the courts of the latter State could not recognize the right of a public administrator there appointed to any part of such land.23 After a State court of probate has begun the administration of the assets of a decedent, a Federal court may establish a debt against the estate,24 and direct the payment, by the personal representative or his sureties, of such debt,25 or of a legacy, or of a distributive share; 26 or determine the rights of a devisee 27 establish a claim that he might have made in the probate court 28 when the case concerning which he seeks relief is not then pending in the Surrogates' Court; 29 and it may thus or otherwise adjudicate upon the construction of a will,30 and compel an accounting by an executor or administrator; 31 although the court, after declaring

22 Sutton v. English, 246 U. S. 199, 205.

23 Slater v. Thompson, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 768.

24 Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536; Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U. S. 73, 28 L. ed. 927; Schurmeier v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., C. C. A., 171 Fed. 1.

25 Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536; Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U. S. 73, 28 L. ed. 927. See also Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172, 12 L. ed. 655.

26 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 19 L. ed. 260; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 37 L. ed. 867; Brendel v. Charch, 82 Fed. 262; Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Tr. Co., 215 U. S. 33, 54 L. ed. 80; Pulver v. Leonard, 176 Fed. 586; Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey v. Steinhauser, 179 Fed. 137; Higgins v. Eaton, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 388, reversing 178 Fed. 153; Am. Baptist Home Mission Society v. Stewart,

192 Fed. 976; Fraser v. Cole, C. C. A., 214 Fed. 556; Maling v. Maling, 217 Fed. 127; Jennings v. Smith, 242 Fed. 561. As to the effect upon such a proceeding of a previous intervention in the State court by the State claiming an escheat. MeClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 54 L. ed. 762; S. C., C. C. A., 187 Fed. 915. See, also, Barker v. Eastman, 192 Fed. 659.

27 Swann v. Austell, 253 Fed. 807. 28 McPherson v. Mississippi Valley Tr. Co., C. C. A., 122 Fed. 367. 29 McCauley V. McCauley, 202

Fed. 280.

30 Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 37 L. ed. 867; Toms v. Owen, 52 Fed. 417; Wood v. Paine, 66 Fed. 807; Waterman V. CanalLouisiana Bank & T. Co., 215 U. S. 33, 54 L. ed. 80; Spencer v. Watkins, C. C. A., 169 Fed. 379.

31 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall, 425, 19 L. ed. 260; Hale v. Tyler, 115 Fed. 833, 839. See Comstock v. Herron,