468 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and adequate remedy. The Jurisdiction in equity arises in ail such cases upou a proper allegation of fraud. If it were necessary to aver and prove insolveney as well as fraud, the jurisdiction would be defeated in very many cases. �3. It is insisted that this court cannot maintain the in- junction beoause it stays proseedings in a state court. Sec- tion 720 of the Eevised Statutes of the United States provides that "the writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state except in cases whare such injunction may be au- thorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy. " The ready answer to this proposition is that the court is not asked to grant an injunction to stay proceedings upon the judgment in the state court, but only to continue in force an injunction allowed by the state court before the removal of the cause. Jnrisdiction for this purpose is plainly given by the fourth section of the act of congress of March 3, 1875, which provides "that when any suit shall be removed from a state court to a circuit court of the United States, • * * ail injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such suit prior to its removal shall remain in fuU force and effect untn dissolved or modified by the court to which such suit shall be so removed." If the removal act did not contain this provision, I think it would be implied from necessity. In ail cases where a removal is authorized, the federal court must be empowered by necessary implication, if not by the express words of the statute, to take the case and carry it on to find judgment and execution. If this were not so, the effect of a removal might be to deprive a party of his remedy in the state court, and to give him none in the federal court. �The motion to dissolve the injunction is overruled. �NoTB. See Digg» v. Waicott, 4 Crajich, 179. ��� �
