LEVl V. COLDMBIA LIFE INS. 00. 209 �Under the particular laws of the state, under certain cir- cumstances, the state courts should pass preliminarily on certain matters, which might ultimately ripen into a decree for settlement of all the affairs relating to a certain matter or Company. Now, if federal courts or state courts elsewhere may proceed by their judgments to strike through such a set- tlement, -which is intended for the equal distribution of all the assets of the company, the settlement may be ultimately destroyed. �Such a state of tacts -would defeat the very purposes of the statute. It -would resuit in a race of diligence, whereby, through a particular jurisdiction — it may be the state or fed- eral courts, from one end of the Union to the other — priorities may be obtained, and the intention that the assets in the hands of the receiver for the purpose of equal distribution, amongall of the demands against the company, be entirely de- feated. Consequently, -when proceedings are instituted under the insurance act of the state, -with regard to a Missouri cor- poration, the -whole ma'ter passes into the jurisdiction and cognizance of the state court, and -whatever occurs subse- quently thereto, with regard to such administration, must pursue such course as the court having custody thereof may determine as right and proper. If an error is committed the ordinary course must be pursued. �Hence, -without going further back than the case of Taylor V. Carryl, do^wn to the present hour, with the exceptions of the two cases of Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; 14 Wall. 252, thero bas been an unbroken current of authority that a fed- fj:-al court shall not interfere with the administration of affairs liiwfully in the custody and jurisdiction of a state court. Vice versa, no state court can interfere with the custody and administ.ation of the res which a federal court bas lawfully in custody. Neither the one nor the other sliall interfere with the respective officers, to-wit : this court will not tolerate interference with a receiver appointed by it; and, on the other hand, will not interfere with a receiver appointed by a state court. Thus harmouy is wrought in the adm nistra- �v.l,no.4 — 14 ��� �
