7 S. Ct. 732, sustaining validity of deed under principles announced in State authorities; Ridings v. Johnson, 128 U. S. 224, 32 L. 405, 9 S. Ct. 76, following interpretation of recording laws given by State court; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 321, 33 L. 920, 10 S. Ct. 559, holding procedure established by State to quiet titles binding on Federal courts; Roberts v. Lewis, 153 U. S. 377, 38 L. 750, 14 S. Ct. 946, and Buford v. Kerr, 90 Fed. 514, 62 U. S. App. 273, adopting construction of State court as to quantity of estate passed by a will; Barney v. Keokuk, 4 Dill. 598, F. C. 1,032, adopting State construction of legislation as to rights of railroad to lay tracks in city streets; Mitchell v. Lippincott, 2 Woods, 471, F. C. 9,665, following later decisions of State court construing married woman's law of Alabama; Sparhawk v. Cochran, 22 Fed. Cas. 859, holding rate of interest in note not usurious, according to law of Pennsylvania; Buford v. Holley, 28 Fed. 685, allowing creditor's bill, brought in conformity to State statute and authority; New Orleans, etc., Co. v. Southern Brewing Co., 36 Fed. 834, following State decision construing chartered privileges of corporation; Western Union, etc., Co. v. Poe, 64 Fed. 14, and Sanford v. Poe, 69 Fed. 549, 37 U. S. App. 378, holding tax law valid in deference to State decision rendered after decision of lower Federal court; Independent Dist. of Pella v. Beard, 83 Fed. 16, holding that trust was created as to funds in hands of receiver, according to rule established by State court; Brevoort v. Grace, 53 N. Y. 252, holding legislature may, by special act, authorize sale of lands of infants. Affirmed in Towle

v. Remsen, 70 N. Y. 307, dissenting opinion, p. 321, where portion of same property was in litigation.

Cited generally in Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 34, 27 L. 365, 2 S. Ct. 22, collecting authorities and holding court not bound to follow decision of State court rendered after decision of Federal Circuit Court. Approved in dissenting opinion in Johns v. Doe, 33 Md. 529, majority construing a statute affecting disposition of property acquired after making of a will. Cited in 32 Am. Dec. 588, note, giving history of litigation involved in principal case.

Distinguished in Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 207, 23 L. 831, holding that vendor's lien reserved in express terms passed by assignment of debt, where State law at the time was not settled; Barber v. Pittsburg, etc., R. R., 166 U. S. 100, 41 L. 933, 17 S. Ct. 491, holding single decision of State court, upon construction of will, not conclusive.

States. In respect to rights to real property sovereignty of State of New York has not been impaired by her adoption of Federal Constitution, p. 433.

Courts. The power to establish Federal courts affords no pretext to Federal authorities for abrogating any established State law of property, or for removing any obligation of her citizens to submit to rule of local sovereign, p. 433.

Cited with approval in Independent Dist. v. Beard, 83 Fed. 14, holding court bound by State construction of what constituted trust funds in hands of receiver of insolvent bank.

24 How. 435-450, 16 L. 745, CURTIS v. COUNTY OF BUTLER.

Corporations.- Powers and privileges do not pass by an act of incorporation, unless granted in unambiguous terms, and act must be strictly construed, p. 448.

Municipal corporations.— Legislature has power to allow counties to make subscriptions to railroad company, and act of February 9, 1853, of Pennsylvania gave commissioners power to issue bonds for that purpose, and to bind county to pay them, pp. 447, 449.

Cited and affirmed in Woods v. Lawrence County, 1 Black, 407, 17 L. 127, holding subscription made under same act as involved in principal case valid; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Otoe County, 1 Dill. 342, F. C. 2,667, holding petition showed county prima facie liable on bonds. Cited generally with approval in County of Beaver v. Armstrong, 44 Pa. St. 69, holding that railroad bonds are negotiable securities; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Tennessee, 8 Heisk. 788, holding that county could not resist payment of subscription on account of mere irregularities in proceedings. Cited approvingly in Commissioners of Roads v. Shorter, 50 Ga. 508, holding bona fide purchaser of county bonds could not be charged with irregularities in their issue. Cited in Curtis v. Butler County, 6 Fed. Cas. 1001, where principal case was certified to Supreme Court for decision of this question.

Municipal corporations.— Generally all powers conferred upon commissioners may be legally executed by two out of three, and especially when act provides that bonds may be signed by a majority; accordingly municipal railroad aid bonds signed by two out of three commissioners are valid, p. 450.

Cited and rule applied in First Nat. Bank v. Mount Tabor, 52 Vt. 99, 36 Am. Rep. 739, reviewing authorities and holding that signing of certificate of assent by two out of three selectmen, was sufficient. Cited in exhaustive note on subject of municipal bonds, 98 Am. Dec. 678.

24 How. 450-461, 16 L. 749, FREEMAN v. HOWE.

Courts. In case of conflicting authorities under State and Federal process, the jurisdiction which first attaches by seizure and custody of the res, prevails, p. 455.

Cited and rule affirmed and relied upon in Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 177, 181, 28 L. 391, 392, 4 S. Ct. 355, 357, reversing S. C., 44 Mich. 333, 38 Am. Rep. 273, 6 N. W. 846, holding that State court could not replevy property in custody of marshal; Tua v.

Carriere, 117 U. S. 208, 29 L. 858, 6 S. Ct. 569, holding that surrender of property to Bankruptcy Court prevented any subsequent seizure; Rio Grande R. R. Co. v. Vinet, 132 U. S. 482, 33 L. 401, 10 S. Ct. 156, holding that State Probate Court could not control property in possession of Federal court; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 618, 37 L. 872, 13 S. Ct. 910, holding that Federal court could not dispossess State Probate Court; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 281, 38 L. 989, 14 S. Ct. 1027, holding possession of Admiralty Court paramount; Ex parte Johnson, 167 U. S. 125, 42 L. 104, 17 S. Ct. 737, holding that Federal court first acquiring jurisdiction of the person was entitled to try the prisoner; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 164, 19 S. Ct. 125, holding that Federal court having jurisdiction over person and property in a case cannot restrain criminal suit in State court; In re Clark, 4 Ben. 98, 3 N. B. R. 528 (131), F. C. 2,798, refusing to interfere with control of property by receiver of State court; Ruggles v. Simonton, 3 Biss. 329, F. C. 12,120, holding that sheriff's possession could not be disturbed; Daly v. The Sheriff, 1 Woods, 178, · F. C. 3,553, where Federal court refused to restrain proceedings in State court; Wilmer v. Atlanta, etc., R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 421, F. C. 17,775, and Adams v. Mercantile Trust Co., 66 Fed. 621, 30 U. S. App. 204, holding jurisdiction attached to court first having possession, although constructive only; Ex parte Turner, 3 Woods, 608, F. C. 14,246, holding State court could not order removal of papers held by Federal court for evidence; Domestic, etc., Soc. v. Hinman, 2 McCrary, 546, 13 Fed. 163, holding State court's possession in replevin suit paramount; United States v. Wells, 28 Fed. Cas. 524, applying rule to criminal case, and holding State entitled to custody of prisoner; Senior v. Pierce, 31 Fed. 627, protecting custody of officer of State court; Melvin v. Robinson, 31 Fed. 635, holding mortgagee could not interfere with jurisdiction of State court by replevin in Federal court; Tefft v. Sternberg, 40 Fed. 5, 5 L. R. A. 224, and note, court declining to appoint receiver of property under control of State court; The E. L. Cain, 45 Fed. 369, ordering causes retained until State court released custody of tug; Gates v. Bucki, 53 Fed. 966, 12 U. S. App. 69, holding decree in foreclosure made by Federal court ineffectual while realty was subject to control of State court; Central Trust Co. v. South Atlantic, etc., Co., 57 Fed. 9, holding receiver could not be appointed to supersede appointment in State court; Porter v. Davidson, 62 Fed. 627, holding State officer entitled to possession of chattels; Wadley v. Blount, 65 Fed. 674, restraining use of pleadings, proofs and papers in the prosecution of cause in another court; Foster v. Bank, 68 Fed. 726, holding State court's control of subject-matter to be exclusive: In re Foley, 80 Fed. 951, collecting authorities and holding that probate proceedings could not be removed to Federal court; Hale v. Bugg, 82 Fed. 37, holding sheriff's possession could not be disturbed at suit of receiver appointed by court of another State; Gay, etc., Co. v.

Brierfield, etc., Co., 94 Ala. 315, 33 Am. St. Rep. 134, 11 So. 358, 16 L. R. A. 570, holding property in custody of law cannot be attached; Metzner v. Graham, 57 Mo. 410, applying rule where courts of coordinate jurisdiction attempted control; Patterson v. Stephenson, 77 Mo. 333, court directing distribution to be made in order of successive levies; Southern v. Fisher, 6 S. C. 349, holding bankrupt estate under exclusive control of Federal court sitting in bankruptcy; Longstreet, etc., Co. v. Hill & Co., 11 Heisk. 57, holding court entitled to control whose officer first seized the goods; Craig v. Hoge, 95 Va. 280, 28 S. E. 319, holding that Federal court's possession of trust funds in a suit brought by trustee was exclusive.

Cited generally in Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 498, 27 L. 1010, 3 S. Ct. 335, holding Federal court in Louisiana could not, by decree in equity, invalidate a will; Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 600, 30 L. 537, 7 S. Ct. 349, where assets sought to be marshalled were not in possession of any other court; Dixwell v. Jones, 2 Dill. 185, note, F. C. 3,937, holding tax properly assessed against property valid, despite claims of mortgagee; Reinach v. Atlantic, etc., R. R. Co., 58 Fed. 44, court refusing to stay proceedings in State court; Delaware, etc., Co. v. Davenport, etc., Co., 46 Iowa, 410, holding petition to remove cause to Federal court insufficient; Dorr's Admr. v. Rohr, 82 Va. 370, 3 Am. St. Rep. 115, holding that State court could not enjoin decree of Federal court. Cited, arguendo, in Edwards v. White Line, etc., Co., 104 Mass. 163, 6 Am. Rep. 215, holding that property wrongfully attached may be replevied by owner; Jett v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 959, holding that State and Federal courts may have concurrent jurisdiction of criminal offenses. Approved without applying rule, in Booth v. Ableman, 16 Wis. 464, 84 Am. Dec. 712, holding that County Court having wrongfully replevied property from marshall should have ordered it returned. Approved in dissenting opinion, In re Delks Estate, 52 S. W. 55 (Ind. Ter.), majority affirming power to appoint administrator in Federal court, notwithstanding Cherokee administrator. Approved in following concurring opinions: Hines v. Rawson, 40 Ga. 361, 2 Am. Rep. 584, court holding that State court could not interfere with proceedings in Federal court; Smith v. Ford, 48 Wis. 155, 2 N. W. 159, holding that parties in suit to set aside mortgage could not be compelled to litigate in subsequent action to foreclose, brought in another court. Cited in note, 76 Am. Dec. 223.

Rule limited in Chapman v.. Brewer, 114 U. S. 173, 29 L. 88, 5 S. Ct. 806, holding that Federal bankruptcy proceedings dissolved prior State attachment; The Sailor Prince, 1 Ben. 237, F. C. 12,218, holding that sheriff's possession of freight money could not prevent levy by marshal to enforce lien for seamen's wages; Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 369, F. C. 11,481, sustaining bill to enforce payment of judgment in another court where nature of remedy and parties were different; The Caroline, 1 Low. 173. F. C. 2,419, holding

that State court cannot interfere with adjustment of maritime liens; Kinney v. Crocker, 18 Wis. 78, holding that possession of railroad by receiver of Federal court did not prevent action in State court for injuries sustained. Distinguished in The James W. French, 5 Hughes, 434, 13 Fed. 920, holding that rule did not apply where sheriff's prior possession was unlawful; Walker v. Flint, 2 McCrary, 343, 7 Fed. 436, holding that attornment to State insurance officer did not put property in custodia legis of State court; Rumsey v. Town, 20 Fed. 563, holding that court could pass upon validity of mortgage without interfering with court having control of assignment proceedings; In re Independent Ins. Co., 2 Low. 100, 6 Bank. Reg. 172, F. C. 7,018, holding that State Supreme Court could not have full possession of res, in dissolving corporation, so as to oust Bankruptcy Court; The Daniel Kaine, 35 Fed. 788, holding that sheriff's levy did not involve disposition of property, and was no interference; Ball v. Tompkins, 41 Fed. 490, holding that controversy not involving possession of res, is no bar to same controversy in another court; Ahlhauser v. Butler, 50 Fed. 708, holding similarly as to suits in personam and in rem; Merritt v. American, etc., Co., 79 Fed. 231, 49 U. S. App. 92, holding that commencement of suit in personam is no bar to commencement of same suit in another forum.

Courts.- Property seized by mesne process of attachment in Federal court, and in custody of marshal, cannot be replevied in a subsequent suit brought by a mortgagee in State court, who was not party to the Federal suit and claimed the property as his own, p. 456.

Rule approved and applied in the following citing cases: Riggs v. Johnson Co., 6 Wall. 196, 18 L. 776, holding that State court cannot enjoin assessment of tax commanded by Federal court; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 716, 719, 20 L. 671, 672, holding marshal of Chancery Court could not be displaced as to actual possession, by another court; People's Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 262, 26 L. 103, holding that Federal court could decide upon conflicting claims to property in hands of its receiver; Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 177, 179, 28 L. 391, 4 S. Ct. 355, 356, reversing S. C., 44 Mich. 333, 334, 38 Am. Rep. 273, 274, 6 N. W. 846, 847, holding that marshal could not be dispossessed by State court; Rio Grande R. R. Co. v. Vinet, 132 U. S. 481, 482, 33 L. 401, 10 S. Ct. 156, holding that State Probate Court could not control property in possession of marshal; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 614, 617, 37 L. 871, 872, 13 S. Ct. 908, 909, holding that Federal court could not distribute estate in hands of administrator appointed by State court; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 274, 280, 38 L. 987, 989, 14 S. Ct. 1024, 1026, holding State court could not interfere with maritime lien upon property in possession of Federal court; Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 461, 42 L. 817, 18 S. Ct. 413, holding that State court could not enjoin sale