ute, a.nd 'such facts as the proof may establish as to the necessary oper· a'tion" of the:statute,' co'me before the court to be dealt with upon the finalheari'Dg and, in the ,appellate court.
re"CENTENNIAL BOARD OF FINANCE.
(Oircuit Co'U,rt, E. D. Pennsylvania.
,."A body " incorporated by act of congress, having certain specified duties to perform, and by tlle,act"to convert Us property into cash, and to divide. after the payment of all liabilities, the remaining assets among the stock:' :'holders, will not be relieved from this duty on the ground of the smallneSS of the divi\l,enl;1 or the diffioulty of distribution. '
'. " ., Petition of Thomas Cochran, JohnS. Barbour, Frederick Fraley ,Sellers, Clement M. N. Parker, Shortridge, James M. Robb; Edward T. Steel, John Wanamaker, Amos R. Little, Thomas H. Dudley, Edwin II. Fitler, Willi/lIPV. McKeji,D, John Baird, Henry D. W. Vj. Justice, Joel J.Bailey, John ,yumminge, John Gorham,A-bram S. Hewitt. WilliaOl;L. Strong, .tohnE. Drake, George Ba:1ii'l!:nd A. T.(]oshorn, o,fficers and directors ofthe Oentennial Board of Finance, settingout that it had fully duties; that it had on hand ,two funds, one 84,960.03, ,the amount shU unclaimed from two dividends, and a general fund, 88,6S0.87. This latter fund would pay 8 of between two and three cents a share. The shares were widely scattered. Prayer that the petitioners be relieved from further fund, and that the court should appoint a suitable custocustody dian qf it, certain payments had been made. The Centennial Board 'of Finance was incorporated by act of congress of June I, 1872, as "a body corporate, to be known by the name of the' Centennial Board of Finance,'" and section 10 ofthe act provided: "That as soon as practicable after the said exhibition shall have been closed it shall be the duty of said corporation to convert its property into cash, and, after the payment of all its liabilities. to divide its remaining assets among its stockhOlders pro rata, In full satisfaction and discharge of its capital stock. And it shall be the duty of the United States Centennial Commission to superVise the closing up Of the affairs of the said corporation, to audit its &cccouuts, and s.ubmit, in report to the president of the Unittld States, the financial results of the CeJl.tennial Exhibition.", S. B. Hollingworth andThos. Dudley, for petitioners. BUTLER,J. The petitioners are not ordinary trustees, but the offiool'S of a corporation, with active duties to perform as such. The distrihu· tion of the moneys in their hands is provided for by the statute out of which the corporation grew. The petitioners are required to divide it
MERCANTILETRU$T <;:0. ". MISSOURI, K. &: T. BY. CO.
among the stockholders. From the performance of this duty we cannot relieve them. Their situation is rendered embarrassing by the stances stated in the petition, and we wOt\ld; relieve them if we had the power to do 50, and could thus exercise it with propriety. Relief may be found t,hrough.application tocongre$S. '
K.& T. Ry; Co. et aZCo.
fl. EAST LINE
FIDELITY INSURANCE,' TRUST & SAFE DEPOSIT RED RIVER R.Co. et al.
'(CircUit dourt, N. D. Texas.' June 6, 1890.)
1. FBDBRAL A1'fD BUTE COtrRTS,....,COlllFLIOTING.JURISDIOTION-BAJLWAT FOREcLosURE. . . '
An interstate railway company purchased a small road lying entirely within a state, the whole system, including the new purchl).$e. After several years, suit to foreclose was brought in the fe1leral circuit court, and the whole, property Wllos placed in the hands of a receiver. In ,the mean time, b)t . p.l'9ceedings in the state court, thA. charter of the. lIt.!'te road was declared forfeited, and a receiver of its property appointed. This receiver then petitioned the fedemlcourt for, possession, alleging that the sale of the road was ultra vires andvold, and that tberefore, the federal court had no jurisdiction. Held, that this merely raised the IInestiou as to the validity of the sale, which question could properly be tried in the federal court, and hence it would retain possession. The fact that the mortgagees of a' priOlo mortgage, which was placed upon the state road before its sale, had intervened in tbe federal court for the protection and enforoement of. theirfrior, Uen, was also a sufticient ground for retaining jurisdiQtionand possession 0 the road. · ' . 'l'he.fact\llat the state etatutes provide for.the payment of the corporation's debts after its charter is forfeited, and for the distribution of its assets, does not give the state courts exclusive jurisdiction; since these directione will be complied with in .the federal courts.
B.B.um";'FOLLOWING STATE LAWS.
In Equity. Petition by W. M. Giles, who was appointed receiver of the East I"ine & Red River Railroad, in a proceeding in the state coqrt of Texas to forfeit its charLer, to obtain possession of the road as against receivers appointed by the federal court. Petition denied. Alexander & Green and E. EUery Ander80n. for Mercantile Trust Co. Ja'fM8 Hagerman, for receivers of Missouri, K. & T.Ry. Co. Simon Sterne lind Charles F. Beach, Jr., for Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. John O. BulliU. and Samuel Dickwn,: for Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. R.C. 1ibBter" for East Line &,Red River R. Co. SaW1* .for W. M. Giles, receiver. Befort! M1Ll.ER and LAMAR, Justices, and PARDEE and CALDWELl., JJ. MILLER, Justice, (orally.) We have given this application our attentive consideration, and, as there difference of opinion among the four judges who have been asked to consider the case, there is no reason