296 FEDERAL REPORTER. �$3,000,000 issue of bonds by the First Division of the Saint Paul & Pacific Eailroad Company, of the date of Mardi 1, 1864, who shall corne in and contribute to the expenses of this suit. Eelief is prayed against a decree charged to have been obtained in a state court of Minnesota by the fraud- ulent practices of some of the defendants, and a sale there- under in fraud of the riglits of complainant and others simi- larly situated. �The bill alleges that a suit was brought in the court of common pleas of Eamsey countj', Minnesota, to foreclose a trust deed executed by the First Division of the Saint Paul & Pacific Eailroad Company to secure $3,000,000 of bonds, and on March 24, 1879, a decree of foreclosure was entered by consent of parties to the record in said suit, no answer hav- ing been interposed to the complaint, �The relief prayed for is substantially that the said mort- gage be declared by the court to be a subsisting and valid lien upon the property described therein, and the rights of the holders of ail of said bonds outstanding be maintained, and they be allowed to prove them; that the sale of said property under the said decree of the said state court, and the deed executed to the purchaser thereupon, be declared to be fraudulent and void, and be set aside and cancelled; that a receiver be appointed to take possession of the property, the purchasers at said sale enjoined from intcrfering tbere- ■with, and account for the earnings and income while in their possession, and that the property be sold under the direction of this court for the benefit of ail the hona fide bond holders. General relief is also asked. A demurrer. is interposed by the defendants, alleging : �1. Want of jurisdiction in this court. The defendants* counsel argue, with great ability, that relief should be sought in the court rendering the decree ; that this court bas no jurisdiction to interfere with, set aside or annul the decree of the court of common pleas, that court pertaining to another sovereignty. As I understand the rule, it is this : that in ail cases where, in a direct prooeeding, there are par- ties before a court other than that in which a decree bas been ����
