HUTCHINSON V. GREEN. S37 �It is true, there Ijias been Bome apparent diversity of views as to concurrent jurisdiction m certain classes of cases, as of administiators, etc., settling estates under local laws. It never bas been disputed that a non-resident creditor or dis- tributee could maintain suit against an administrator ; but when judgment was bad, it bad to take its place under the classifications of demands by the local law, instead of being enforced by execution against the administrator or the assets in bis bands. �Tbe case of Toudley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, sufficiently explains the rule and the reason on wbicb it rests. The fol- lowing cases, cited by the respective counsel, divide tbem- selves into two classes : (1) Will a federal court interfere by injunction witb proceedings in a state court? Under tbis bead it must necessarily be determined wbetber sucb matters as are bere sougbt to be enjoined are witbin the purview of the rule. (2) Wbetber, despite proceedings peuding in a state court, a non-resident cannot sue in a federal court, as in probate matters, and obtain judgment against an adminis- trator, to be collected as stated in 21 Wall., supra. �Tbe first proposition is the only one now before tbis court. A provisional injunction is asked under the facts beretofore recited to prevent the assignee from taking possession of or interfering witb the corporate property, even if the state court sbould, in discbarging its receiver, so order. That property is now in custodia legis. Wbat the action of the state court may be is not disclosed, and cannot now be' known. It re- mains for that tribunal, witbout interference from tbis court, to make sucb final orders witb respect tbereto as, in its judg- ment, the law and facts require. The embarrassment under wbicb parties may labor, if tbis court does not usurp juris- diction, are far less tban if conflicts of jurisdiction arise. It may be that great loss and injury will resuit if the corpora- tion is not permitted to proceed with its business affecting the navigation of the upper Mississippi, and tbat, as urged, tbis important enterprise may be wrecked, to the detriment of ail parties in interest, unless tbis court intervenes by injunc- tion. That argument cannot prevail against the prohibition ��� �
