Offenses begun in one district, and completed in another. § 78. Offenses on the high seas, etc., where triable. § 79. § 80. § 81. § 82. § 83. § 83 a. § 83 b. 83 c. Suits for pecuniary penalties and forfeitures, where to be brought. Rules in various States; Alabama. Libel actions and suits to be brought only in district where de. fendant is inhabitant. Civil action and suits, where brought. Jurisdiction depending only on adverse citizenship. Defendant can be sued only in district where he is inhabitant. Controversies. Suits for internal revenue taxes, where to be brought. Suits not of a local nature in States containing several districts. Suits of a local nature in States containing several districts. § 83 d. § 83 e. § 84. $ 85. § 86. § 87. § 88. § 89. § 89 a. Suits founded on contract. § 89 b. Assignment to confer jurisdiction. § 89 c. Assignee of choses in action. § 89 d. § 89 e. § 89 f. § 89 g. Suits by assignee, where cognizable. Suits by assignee of choses in action-latest decisions. Holders of negotiable instruments. § 73. Concurrent with State courts— Subject-matter.-That the circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners. (Clause 1, sec. 1, Act of March 3, 1875, as amended March 3, 5 1887, 24 U. 1888, 25 U. § 73 a. Concurrent jurisdiction. In a transitory action, a right arising under or a liability imposed by either the common law or a State statute may be asserted and enforced in the Federal court.1 Where the State statute gives a right, the same may be asserted or enforced in the Federal courts whenever the citizenship of the parties or the nature of the subject will permit.2 The jurisdiction of a United States court is not affected by a subsequent action brought in the State court. So where two suits are brought on different facts, seeking different relief, they may be brought respectively in the State and Federal courts. The institution of a suit to foreclose a contract relating to real estate, in a State court, will not deprive the Federal court of jurisdiction to foreclose liens against parts of the same real estate where the two suits involve a different controversy. Where the subjectmatter and the parties are before the court in a fore closure for default in some of the installments, it has jurisdiction even though suit is pending in another court on some former installment, and its acts cannot be collaterally attacked. The circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court in actions against a county.7 In cases of dual controversy between different parties, where the union is in no sense due to the plaintiff, the Federal court, it seems, has no jurisdiction. Where two suits, involving to a great extent the subject-matter, are brought respectively in a State and a Federal court, that court whose process is first served obtains jurisdiction of all questions which legitimately flow out of the subject-matter of the case. Between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction will retain it, and will not be interfered with by another court.' Such court may retain the case until complete relief is afforded. 11 So where, under a State act, proceedings for a dissolution and administration of the property of a corporation are commenced, they must be finally disposed of in the State tribunal, though a valid and subsisting judgment was obtained in the Federal court. 12 State and Federal 10 courts cannot lawfully interfere with each other where each is acting within legal limits. The court which first acquires possession of the fund or subject of the action has exclusive jurisdiction. 14 A Federal court will neither interfere with property in the lawful custody of a State court, nor tolerate interference by a State court with property in its custody; nor can a State court reach funds which have been made by an officer of a Federal court on execution;16 but that proper y is being administered on in a State court is no bar to the proceedings in the circuit court. The rule of comity toward State courts should not operate to deprive the Federal court of its rightful jurisdiction;18 but to take advantage of the rule in favor of a State court of concurrent jurisdiction, the point must be seasonably urged; after trial on the merits it is too late.19 The rule of comity applies to criminal as well as to civil cases; so where the marshal took a prisoner charged with the same offense from the custody of the State officer, the Federal court sustained the indictment, and remanded the prisoner to the State authorities. 20 As where, under an act of Congress admitting a State or organizing a Territory, and providing for an Indian reserve;21 but the Federal court has no jurisdiction over an indictment of a white man for the murder of a white man on such a reserve within the limits of a State. 22 With respect to land owned by the United States, within the limits of a State, over which the State has not parted with its jurisdiction, the United States stands in the relation of a proprietor only, and State officers have the same right to enter thereon and seize personal property for non-payment of taxes, if the right is exercised so as not to interfere with the operations of the General Government. 23 The circuit courts have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam growing out of collisions between vessels navigating the Ohio. 24 So they have only concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts in suits in equity by the assignee of a bankrupt in one State against the citizen of another State;25 and they have power to appoint a guardian for an infant only when property of the infant is involved in a legal proceeding before them, in order to preserve it from destruction or waste. 26 The Act of February, 1819, extending the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States to cases arising under the law relating to patents, was not intended to give to the Federal courts exclusive jurisdiction of all cases in equity arising under the patent law.27 Where Congress does not prescribe the tribunal in which alone they are to be prosecuted, the Federal and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over them. 28 1 Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11. See Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. Rep. 41. 2 Holmes v. O. & C. R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 75. 3 Harris v. Hess, 10 Fed. Rep. 203. 4 Dwight v. Centr. Vt. R. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 785. 5 Hubbard v. Bellew, 3 Fed. Rep. 447. 6 Marchand v. Frellson, 4 Morr. Trans. 431. 7 Cunningham v. Co. of Rales, 1 Fed. Rep. 274; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 426. 8 Iowa Home Co. v. Des Moines N. & R. Co. 8 Fed. Rep. 97. 9 Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. University of Chicago, 6 Fed Rep. 443. 10 Davis v. Life Asso. of America, 11 Fed. Rep. 781. 11 Ward v. Todd, 103 U. S. 327. 12 Levi v. Columbia L. Ins. Co., 1 Fed. Rep 206. 13 Walker v. Flint, 7 Fed. Rep. 435. The circuit court has no authority to control the proceedings of a State court, or to stay the prosecution therein: Harrison Wire Co. v. Wheeler, 11 Fed. Rep. 206; Coffin v. Haggin, 11 Fed. Rep. 219. 14 Burt v. Keyes, 1 Flippen, 61. 15 Walker v. Flint, 7 Fed. Rep. 435. 16 Alabama Gold L. Ins. Co. v. Girardy, 9 Fed. Rep. 142. 17 Griswold v. Cent. Vt. R. Co., 9 Fed Rep. 797. 13 Andrews v. Smith, 5 Fed. Rep. 833. 19 Gilman v. Perkins, 7 Fed. Rep. 887. 20 U. S. v. Wells, 11 Am. L. Reg. 424; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; Jett's Case, 18 Gratt. 942; U. S. v. Van Fossen, 1 Dill. 411. See U .S. v. French, 1 Gall. 1; Ex parte Forbes, 1 Dill. 363. 21 Langford v. Monteith, 102,U. S. 155. 22 U. S. v. McBralney. 3 Morr. Trans. 706. 23 State Tax Laws, 14 Op. Att.-Gen. 199. 24 Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 118. 25 Scovill v. Shaw, 4 Cliff. 543; Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 260. 26 Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 2 Morr. Trans. 791. 27 Gibson v. Woodworth, 8 Paige, 133, citing Burrell v. Jewett, 2 Paige, 134. 28 Gilbert v. Priest, 63 Barb. 341; S. C. 8 Bank. Reg. 160. § 73 b. Concurrent jurisdiction-Remedies provided by State statutes.-Upon questions of general law the Federal courts administering justice in Iowa have equal and co-ordinate jurisdiction with the courts of that State. An action at law to enforce the individual liability of stockholders, under provisions of a State code, may be maintained in the Federal court.2 An agent entitled to sue in his own name on a contract for his principal in the State courts, may sue also in the proper case in the Federal court in that State.3 Although the act under which bonds were issued provides for litigation in the State court, such jurisdiction is not exclusive, and does not prevent suit in the circuit court. A remedy given by State statute which can be enforced only in a court of equity may be enforced in the circuit court of the United States in a proper case.5 A State statute providing for enjoining the cutting of timber or boxing the same for turpentine purposes may be administered by the equity courts of the United States. When, under a State statute, it is right to appoint a receiver, the equity courts of the United States may administer and enforce that right. Where a State statute provides that a court of competent jurisdiction is authorized to declare a fraudulent assignment void, equity courts of the United States having jurisdiction can enforce such rights. A Federal court can administer a State attachment law. Although proceedings in the order of seizure and sale of mortgaged property were pending in the State court, the debt could be prosecuted in the circuit court of the United States. 10 1 Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96. 2 Borland v. Haven, 13 Sawy. 551. 3 Albany etc. Iron & Steel Co. v. Lundberg, 121 U. S. 451. 4 Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 523. 5 Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552. 6 Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. Rep. 100. 7 Jaffrey v. Brown, 29 Fed. Rep. 476. 8 Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. Rep. 885. 9 Brooks v. Fry, 45 Fed. Rep. 776. 10 Gordon v. Gilfoil, 99 U. S. 168. § 73 c. Co-ordinate courts cannot interfere with each other. Neither a State nor any tribunal or officer thereof has any color or right to complain of the efforts made by the United States courts to protect suitors therein in their right to prosecute suits and actions before such courts. A suit commenced in either is a bar to an |