ANSKEWS V. SMITH. 833 �Andbbws and others ». Smith and others. �{Oireuit Court, D. Vermont. February 22, 1881.) �1. Jdribdiction— Btatb astd Federal Courts— Comitt—Reokivess— mobtqaob tbtrstebb — accounting. �In a suit by the flrst-mortgage bondholders of the Vennont Central Raiiroad againgt the mortgage trustees, for holding said trustees ac- countable for moneys alleged to have been taken by them from the trust funds in their hands in violation of their trust, the defendants pleaded that during the period of the accounting called for they had been in possession of thfr raiiroad as i^ceivets or offlcers of the court of chancery of Franklin county, Vermont, and, as such receivers, had already rendered an account to said court of chancery for the snms claimed in this suit, and so they could not be held chargeable^ there- for in any proceeding for that purpose in this court; or that if they were otherwise so cbargeable, yet as the same subject-matter was previously before the state court for adjudication, this court should dismiss the plaintiffs' bill, out of comity towards the state court. The defendants also contended that if they had ceased to be receivers of the state court prier to the origin of the demand in suit, yet no order for discharging them as receivers had ever been entered in the state court, and that this court should still regard them as o^oial receivers of the state court. Bdd, that the reeeivership formerly existing in the state court had practically ceased prior to the period covered by the accounting claimed in this case, and that the state court had so determined, and that, as the parties themselves had brought the reeeivership to a close by their own acts, no formai entry in court of such discharge was necessary, and that, as the parties to the proceed- ing in the state court were not the same as the parties in this case, the pendency of such proceedings would be no bar to this suit. Alto hdd, that the rule of comity towards the state court could not operate to deprive this court of its own rightful iurisdiction. �. In Equity. Demurrer and plea to jurisdiction. �W. G. Shaw and F. A. Brooks, for plaintiffs. �B. F. Fiafield and L. P. Poland, for defendants. �Whbeler, D. J. The defendants, citizena of Vermont, are trustees and representatives of trustees under the first mort- gage of the Vermont Central Raiiroad, who have been in pos- session, after a default of payment, of that and the Vermont & Canada Eailroad, (subject to a prior lien upon the income of both roads,) to secure the payment of rent to the Vermont & Canada Eailroad Company. �The orators, citizens of Massachusetts, are holders and �v.5,no.l0— 53 ����
