HAMILTON V. CHOUTBAU. 339 �defendant ought not to be permitted, against this Bhowing, to place this structure in the river until its right to do so is deanitely ascertained and determined. I am surprised that any person should have the hardihood to undertake such an important enterprise, in the face of the aet of February 14, 1859, supra, declaring the river a conamon highway, and the congressional legislation of the last 15 years upon the subject of bridging navigable -waters of the United States, without first obtaining the sanction of congress. �But this being a matter of some moment to the defendant, I have concluded to delay the issuing of the injunction until the first day of the next term, April llth, or as soon there- after as the circuit judge is present, when the matter may be further heard, if the defendant desires it; and in the.mean- time the defendant will be restrained by order, as prayed in thebill. ���Ha>ilton and others ». Chouteaij and others. �(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. January 17, 1881.) �X. Fbdebai, JtmreDicTioN — Insolvbnt Lifb Inbubancb Compakt — Rbceiveb up State Court— Policy-Holdeus—Stockholdeks— Fkatto. �Suit was instituted in a federal court by the policy-holders of an ineolvent life insurance company against its stocfeliolders for the fraudulent appropriation of a part of the assets of the company. Hdd, that such court could not assume jurisdiction when the com- pany was in the hands of a receiver of a state court, who was pro- ceeding to collect and administer the assets for the benclit of ail the creditors. — [Ed. �In Equity. Demurrer. �This was a bill filed by the policy-holders of the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company for relief against its stock- holders. The company, a Missouri corporation, was chartered on the mutnal plan, with stock of the par value of $100,000, of which defendants were the owners. Proceedings were commenced in the state court by the insurance eommissioner ��� �
