HXJTCHINSON V. 6UEEN. 883 �HuTCHiNsoN and others «» Geeen and others* �(Circuit Court, E. JD. Missouri. April 5, 1881.) �1. Injunction— Interference with Cohthol of Pbopbrtt m Pos- �session oF State Court. �No injunction will be granted by a United States court to interfere with the possession, control, or disposition of property which iS in the hands of a state court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. �2. Rbceivbr — Possession op State Court. �The possession of a receiver appointed by a state court is the pos- session of the court itself , and the disposition of the property by the receiver is a matter to be ordered by the state court, and will not be interfered with by a United States court by injunction. �3. Bamb — Fbaudulent Assignmbnt — Injunction, �Where a state court has appointed a receiver of the property of a corporation, and a fraudulent assignment has been subscquently made of the same, a United States court will not enjoin the assignee from receiving such corporate property from the receiver, in case the state court having control thereof orders it to be turned over to him. �In Equity. �E. T. Allen and J. 0. Broadhead, for plaintiffs. �James Taussig and I. A. MadiU, for defendants. �Tkeat, D. J. The plaintiffs, citizens of lowa, bring this suit in behalf of themselves and other stockholders who may join against the defendant corporation, of which they are stockholders, and the assignee of said corporation. The pur- pose of the suit is to have the assignment made by the corpo- ration, through its then corporate authorities, under the facts and circumstances alleged, adjudged void; and in addition thereto it is prayed that a receiver may be appointed and an injunction against the assignee granted. The present motion is for a provisional injunction against the assignee. It ap- pears that a petition pursuant to the statutes of Missouri was filed in the state circuit court for the removal of certain directors and the president of the defendant corporation, and Buch proceedings were thereupon had that said removals were decreedi and a special election ordered to fill the vacan- cies thus created in the board of directors. At the same �time said court appointed a receiver of the corporate prop- v.6,no.9— 53 ��� �
