Suits by material men upon the bonds of contractors with the Federal government arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.1 10 A suit on the bond of a clerk of a court of the United States which depends upon the scope and effect of the bond and the meaning of the statutes in conformity with which it was given, is a suit arising under the laws of the United States, of which a District Court has original jurisdiction without diversity of citizenship. A District Court of the United States has jurisdiction of a suit brought by a trustee in bankruptey, to enforce the bond of his predecessor.12 § 34. Suits by and against officers of the United States. Suits brought by officers of the United States in the exercise of their official functions arise under the laws of the United States and may be brought in the District courts or if previously brought in the State courts may be removed thereto. It was held that an action by a United States marshal against his deputy, to recover according to contract a part of fees collected, is not removable.3 Suits against officers of the United States for acts done by virtue, or under color, of their office, arise under the laws of the United States and may be removed. Thus, a suit against a marshal of the United States for an abuse of 10 U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. U. S., 204 U. S. 349, 51 L. ed. 516; U. S. v. Churchyard, 132 Fed. 82; U. S. ex rel. Giant Powder Co. v. Axman, 152 Fed. 816. Contra, U. S. v. Henderlong, 102 Fed. 2, U. S. v. Sheridan, 119 Fed. 236; U. S. v. O'Brien, 120 Fed. 446, 448; U. S. v. Barrett, 135 Fed. 189; Bur rell v. U. S., C. C. A., 147 Fed. 44, 46. 11 Howard v. U. S., 184 U. S. 676, 46 L. ed. 754; affirming 102 Fed. 77, 42 C. C. A. 169. 12 U. S. ex rel. Schauffler v. Union Surety & Guaranty Co., 118 Fed. 482. $34. 1 U. S. R. R. Adm. v. Burch, 254 Fed. 140. 2 Johnson v. Rankin (Texas), 95 S. W. 665. 3 Setzer v. Douglass, 91 N. C. 4 Cleveland, C. C. & I. R. Co. v. McClung, 119 U. S. 454, 30 L. ed. 465; affirming 15 Fed. 905; Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628, 35 L. ed. 314; Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U. S. 401, 43 L. ed. 492; Auten v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 174 U. S. 125, 141, 43 L. ed. 920, 926; Van Zandt v. Maxwell, Fed. Cas. No. 16, 884 (2 Blatchf. 421); Warner v. Fowler, Fed. Cas. No. 17,182 (4 Blatchf. 311); Ellis v. Norton, 16 Fed. 4, 4 Woods, 399; Front St. Cable Ry. Co. v. Drake, 65 Fed. 539; Drake v. Paulhamus, C. C. A., 66 Fed. 895; Wood v. Drake, 70 Fed. 881; Galatin V. Sherman, 77 Fed. 337; Eighmy v. Poucher, 83 Fed. 855, Woods v. Root, C. C. A., 123 Fed. 402. But Federal process against the defendant to the writ,5 or for levying under a writ upon property claimed by a stranger to the suit, but which the marshal claims belongs to the defendant to the writ, arises under the laws of the United States, and is removable; at least when the plaintiff's initial pleading shows that the defendant's acts, of which complaint is made, were done in his official capacity. Where this did not appear in the plaintiff's pleading, it was held, that the action was not removable. a suit against a marshal for a levy upon goods which he does not claim to be the property of the person named in the writ, is not removable. It was held: that an action by a deputy marshal against his principal, for fees due him, is not removable.1 10 The fact that a private individual is made a co-defendant with the marshal in the suit does not divest the court of jurisdiction. It was held, that an action against private individuals, for wrongfully causing a United States marshal to levy execution on plaintiff's chattels, is a case arising under the laws of the United States and may be removed.12 Suits against receivers of national banks and receivers appointed by the Federal courts are considered in the following sections. An action by or against the agent of the shareholders appointed to take charge of the assets of a national bank, arises under the laws of the United States.13 11 § 35. Suits by and against receivers of national banks. A suit by the receiver of a national bank, appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency, at least when brought in the course of 5 Front St. Cable Ry. . Co. V. Drake, 65 Fed. 539; Wood v. Drake, 70 Fed. 881. 6 Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628, 35 L. ed. 314; affirming 28 Fed. 123; Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U. S. 401, 43 L. ed. 492; Ellis v. Norton, 16 Fed. 4, 4 Woods 399; Drake v. Paulhamus, C. C. A., 66 Fed. 895. 7 Walker v. Coleman, 55 Kan. 381, 40 Pac. 640, 49 Am. St. Rep. 254. Contra, Ellis v. Nortón, 16 Fed. 4, 4 Woods 399; Wood v. Drake, 70 Fed. 881; Howard v. Stewart, 34 Neb. 765, 52 N. W. 714. 6. 8 Rothschild v. Matthews, 22 Fed. 9 Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334, 18 L. ed. 257; Kelsey v. Dallon, Fed. Cas. No. 7,678; McKee v. Coffin, 66 Tex. 304, 1 S. W. 276. 10 Upham v. Scoville, 40 Ark. 170. 11 Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U. S. 401, 43 L. ed. 492; But see Wardens, etc., of St. Luke's Church v. Sowles, 51 Fed. 609; Frank v. Leopold & Feron Co., 169 Fed. 922. 12 Hurst v. Cobb, 61 Fed. 1. 13 Barron v. McKinnon, 179 Fed. 759. winding up the affairs of the bank, arises under the laws of the United States, and may be removed by the defendant when it involves the jurisdictional amount. A suit against a receiver of a national bank, similarly appointed, under similar circumstances, arises under the laws of the United States and may be removed; 2 but not unless the matter in dispute exceeds the statutory limit; 3 nor, it has been said, when the receiver is not a necessary, although he is a proper, party to the action. A suit against a national bank and its receiver to enforce the bank's covenant to indemnify its lessor from any loss of rent in case of re-entry is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.5 The receiver of a national bank cannot intervene and remove a suit instituted against the bank before his appointment, unless the bank might have removed the case. A bill against such a receiver of a national bank and an executor to recover a legacy, where some of the decedent's assets were deposited in the bank, was dismissed as not arising under the laws of the United States.7 § 36. Suits by and against receivers of Federal corporations. Where either party to a suit is a receiver of a corporation created by an act of Congress, the suit arises under the laws of the $35. 1 Johnson v. Rankin (Texas), 95 S. W. 665. See Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. 209; Armstrong v. Trautman, 36 Fed. 275; McConville v. Gilmour, 1 L.R.A. 498, 36 Fed. 277; Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. 642; Yardley v. Dickson, 47 Fed. 835; Fisher v. Yoder, 53 Fed. 565; Short v. Hepburn, 75 Fed. 113, 21 C. C. A. 252; Thompson v. German Ins. Co., 76 Fed. 892; McCartney v. Earle, C. C. A., 115 Fed. 462. 2 Hot Springs Independent School Dist. No. 10 of Fall River County v. First Nat. Bank, 61 Fed. 417; Auburn Sav. Bank v. Hayes, 61 Fed. 911; Gilbert v. MeNulta, 96 Fed. 83. See Merrill v. Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U. S. 131, 43 L. ed. 640; Auten v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 174 U. S. 125, 43 L. ed. 920; Witters v. Sowles, 42 Fed. 701; Bart ley v. Hayden, 74 Fed. 913; Me- v. Tillinghast, 82 Fed. 4 Speckert v. German Nat. Bank, 98 Fed. 151, 38 C. C. A. 682. 5 Providence Bldg. Co. v. Atlantic Nat. Bank, 228 Fed. 814. 6 Wichita Nat. Bank v. Smith, 72 Fed. 568, 19 C. C. A. 42, 36 U. S. App. 530; writ of error dismissed. Smith v. Wichita Nat. Bank, 42 L. ed. 1214; Speckert v. German Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 98 Fed. 151; reversing 85 Fed. 12. 7 Wardens, etc., St. Luke's Church v. Sowles, 51 Fed. 609. But see supra $34. United States.1 It has been held: that the same rule applies to receivers, appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency, of the assets of banking or trust companies organized under the laws of any of the United States, which have an office or banking house for the receipt of deposits or savings within the District of Columbia.2 § 37. Suits by and against receivers of Federal courts. A suit by a receiver appointed by a Federal court, which is brought to enforce a cause of action vested before his appointment in the corporation which he represents, does not ordinarily arise. under the laws of the United States; and consequently, it cannot be removed where the requisite difference of citizenship does not exist.1 Such a suit may, however, be begun in a District Court of the United States originally, because it is ancillary to that in which the receiver was appointed. Where, however, the validity of the order or decree of a Federal court appointing a receiver, or the construction of such an order or decree, is in question, the suit arises under the laws of the United States, whether the receiver is a plaintiff, or defendant.4 An action by an employee of such a receiver for injuries in the course of his employment may be brought against the latter in a District court of the United States; 5 but when brought $ 36. 1 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 36 L. ed. 829. 2 Lyons v. Bank of Discount, 154 Fed. 391. See 34 St. at L. 458. $37. 1 Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 173 U. S. 573, 43 L. ed. 814; Pepper v. Rogers, 128 Fed. 987. 2 White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36, 40 L. ed. 67; Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 173 U. S. 573, 43 L. ed. 814; Bowman v. Harris, 95 Fed. 917; Connor v. Alligator L. Co., 98 Fed. 155; Alexander v. So. Home Bldg. & L. Ass'n, 120 Fed. 963; Hampton Roads Ry. & El. Co. v. Newport News & O. P. Ry. & El. Co., 131 Fed. 534; Gunby v. Armstrong, C. C. A., 133 Fed. 417; Kirkland v. Knox, C. C. A., 230 Fed. 3 Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 173 U. S. 573, 581, 43 L. ed. 814, 818. 4 Board of Com'rs v. Peirce, 90 Fed. 764; for an injunction; Shinney v. North Am. Savings, L. & Bldg. Co., 97 Fed. 9; to determine the right to assets claimed by a receiver; State v. Frost, 113 Wis. 623, 89 N. W. 915; for an injunction. 5 Betts v. Bisher, C. C. A. 213 Fed. 581; Cobb v. Sertic, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 320; St. Bernard v. Shane, C. C. A., 220 Fed. 853. in a State court, it cannot be removed. Such suits cannot be removed when brought in a State court: to recover damages for malicious conduct in carrying on the business of the receivership. For the cancellation of notes and bonds which the plaintiff had executed to the receivers under duress and fraud and for an injunction against the negotiation of the same, praying in the alternative, a recovery of damages and the impression of a trust upon the property in the receivers' hands. Or for a vacation of the franchise of the corporation over whose property the receiver was appointed. It has been held: that the court will take judicial notice of the fact that a defendant is a receiver; although there is no allegation to that effect in the plaintiff's pleading; 10 and that the joinder of other defendants with a receiver will not deprive him of a right of removal to which he would have been entitled had he been sued alone.11 § 38. Suits by and against trustees in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy law provides: that the District Courts of the United States "shall have jurisdiction of all controversies at law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, between trustees as such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or claimed by the trustees, in the same man ner and to the same extent only as though bankruptcy proceedings had not been instituted and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants." The construction of this is subsequently discussed. It has been held: that in a suit between the trustees of a bankrupt and another, when the requisite difference of citizenship exists be 6 Jud. Code, $ 28, 36 St. at L. 1094, Comp. St. § 1010 see infra. $ 537, 538; Gableman v. Peoria P. D. & E. Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 335, 45 L. ed. 220; Cobb v. Sertic, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 320. 7 Home Telephone Co. v. Powers, 176 Fed. 986. 8 Wrightsville Hardware Co. V. Hardware & Woodenware Mfg. Co., 180 Fed. 586. 9 People v. Bleecker St. & F. F. R. Co., 178 Fed. 156. See also, |