CNITED STATES V. WIOKEESHAM. 511 �cannot be set up as a defence in suits of ihe United States against a defendant. �These authorities, and many others I have consulted, appended in a note, have coniirmed me in the impression I first had, that we have no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of property in possession of the United States, no power to enforce a surrender of it to a receiver, and no 'authority to call its agents into this court to account for its management of the property, no matter how the United States ob- tained the possession, -whether through a decree of this «ourt, in ■wHich it was a plaintiff, or otherwise. And in anf^wer ta the com- plaint that the court itself raised the objection, it may be said that the federal courts always decline jurisdiction on their own motion ■whenever it appears that they have no jurisdiction of the subject- inatter in controversy. It is particularly the duty of all courts to do so where this prerogative of the government is involved, 8 Bac. Abr. tit. "Prerogative," (Bouv.Ed. 1861,) p. 106; Barclay y. Russell, S Yes. 3i. (Supiner's Ed.) 424.. The defendant seoks to bring this case within the principle of that of The Siren, supra. It was evidently clearly within that case when first instituted, and so long as the property remained incustodiakgis, and was in possession of a receiver of this court, we had full jurisdiction; and, if it had been so kept, there would be now no trouble about the jurisdiction. But whenever the defend- ant allowed it to pass from thecontrol of the court as afact, and into the actual possession of the United States, all power to relieve him here ceased from that moment, no matter what the intention of the court was, or of the parties, nor what the proper construction of the decree may be, nor what the rights of the parties under it may re- quire, as against the United States. �It is impossible, in the nature of the case, for this court to retain control over it while it is in the possession of the United States or its agents, or for this court to wrest it from that possession, however much the defendant may be entitled to have that done. It does not alter the case to treat the United States as a receiver; for a claim founded on any breach of its duty in that behalf is as much beyond our jurisdiction as any other. If the decree had contained a stipula- tion to do just what the defendant contends its proper construction requires, the resuit would have boen the same. We cannot enforce the stipulation. If it had been one of the stipulations that the United States would hold for this court and pay according to its decrees, the same difficulty would exist. But I do not think the decree subject to Buch a construction, there being no stipulation to that effect. It was, ��� �
