BELLOWS 11. SOWLES
rOirauU Court, D.Vermont. Ootober 211, 1899.}
Alegatee under a will brought a bill against the exeoutor and against the l'8o ablmk to reach p,ropertyof the testator held by the bank, aud moved tllat other legatees, of the same amount be ,made parties. Held, that there was no ground forooinpelling the other legatees to become parties to the suit, for, though they qlahned in, the same right,tl1ey not claim the same trust property, b,ut merely their sellarate shares in the avails of it, if any. after the assets had been collected and distributed in some way by decree of the probate court.
TO REOOVlm LEGAOY.
In Equjty.Suit byF,rederickBellows against Edward A. Sowles; as executqro,fthe wills ,of Hiram ,and, Susan Bellows, and against Chester W;Witters;fts,receiver of the First National Bank of St. Albans. 'Motion h}rlc¢mpl9.inant for an DrderQfcourt making Charles Bellows and Bert i13ellQws iparties ,to the, Denied.
!W'LWitter8, pro 86. "
, ,WlIE'EI.lJ:R,District Judge;",> The orator and his brothers, Charles and Bert, are 'll.lleged to be legatees ofe2,OOO eaoh in the wills of Hiram and Susan Bellows, of which the: defendant Sowles is executor. He has bl'o,uglrt this Buit in behalf of himself and all othe1'8 in like interest who wIll join him in it, to reach real and personal estate which was of the testators aqquiredby the First: National' Bank of St. Albans, of which the defendant Witters is receNer.:Tbey have not joined in the suit, and this defendant moves that tliey,be made parties, as claimants of the same property, by order of court. But these legatees are not claimants of the samepropt'rty. Each claims a separate legacy of $2,000 in money. In this state, jurisdiction of distripution of estates of deceased persons is vested exclusively in the probate,courts. The equity jurisdiction of this court ('.annot be restrained by statutes ofthe state. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1; Beer8 v. Haughton, I) Pet. 329. But the rights of the parties are to bEntscertained by the,!awsof the state. The legacies are not made chargeable upon any of the property, and neither of the legatees is entitled to a decree against the receiver merely because the legacies are unpaid, and he has assets of the estates. The assets must be got together, and be distributed by decree under the will in some way, before either will be entitled to them. Boyden v. Ward, 38 Vt. 628. The legatees claim in the same right,buUhat is not enough to warrant forcing either to become a party to a suit of the other. They do not claim the same trust property in litigation before the court, but merely their separate shares in the avails ofit, if any. No ground appears for compelling them to become parties to another's suit. Motion denied.
FOOTE et al.
(CtrcuU Court, D. New Jersey. September 27, 1892.)
INJUNCTION-RESTRAINING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT-FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
Decrees of state courts, having jurisdiction, in a suit against a corporation, brought by a creditor on behalf of himself and others, established the validity and declared the legal effect of a deEld of trust made by the corporation for benefit of creditors, ascertained the debts o"71ing by it, and made calls on unpaid subscriptions to its capital stock, upon which the trustee appointed to execute the deed of trust recovered judgment against a stockholder in a United States circuit court in another state. Held. that that court would not restrain the enforcement of such judgment upon charges of fraud and collusion in the al10wance of claims by the decrees of the state courts, neither the corporation nor the creditors whose claims were impugned:being parties to the suit for injunction, and there being other creditors having just claims for tne payu:ent of which there were no assets except the unpaid subscriptions; as, even if more than the complainant's just proportion of such valid claims should be collected by execution, the excess would be refunded.
InEquity. Motion for preliminary injunction. Denied. Suit by John T. Foote, Catharine J. Cooper, and Robert D. Foote against John Glenn, trustee of the National Express & Transportation Company, to restrain the enforcement of a judgment recovered by deagainst the complainant John T. Foote. See 36 Fed. Rep. 824. The. complainants joining with Foote in the bill were the sureties upon the bond given by him upon allowance of a writ to review said judgment. Complainants moved on their bill and affidavits for a preliminary injunction. Alfred MillS and George Zabriskie, for complainants.. Oharles MarshaU and Charles Biddle, for defendant; Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and GREEN, District Judge. ACHESON, Circuit Judge. That the chancery of the city of Richmond, Va., in the suit brought by William W. Glenn, suing on behalf of himself. and other creditors, against the National Express & Transportation Company, a corporation of Virginia, and others, had jurisdic. tion to make its decree of December 14, 18HO, establishing the validity of the deed of trust for the benefit of creditors, executed by the said corporation, and declaring its legal effect, removing the surviving trustees thereunder, and appointing a new trustee (John Glenn) in their place, ascertaining the debts owing by the corporation, and. making an assessment and call upon the subscrihers to its capital stock for a partial payment of their unpaid subscriptions, for the purpose of satisfying the debts of the corporation, and that the citcuit court of Henrico county, Va., to which the cause was removed, had jurisdiction to make its decree in chancery of March 26, 1886, for an·additional assessment and call upon said subscribers, are propositions no longer debatable, in view of the decisions of the supreme court of appeals of Virginia in Lewis' Adm'r v.Glenn, 84 Va. 947, 6 S. E. Rep. 866, and Hamilton v. Glenn, 85 Va. 901, 9 S.E. Rep. 129, and the decisions of the supreme court of the United States in Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 739; Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U. S. 533,10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 867; and Glenn v.52F.no.6-·34