MACKAYB V. MALLOEY. ���f4S ���imparts to this court no autliority to supervise its action. There are cases wbich, at the instance of.a party, may'be transferred froma state to a federal court, but tbis is notone of them. If it were, no attempt bas been made to bring it here. The probate court still retains its jurisdiction of the case, and we cannot stay its action or encroacb upon its authbrity without violating a positive act of congress: "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the' United States to stay proceedings in any coiirt"of a state/ except in cases where siich injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy." Eev. St. § 720. And the supreme court, iu the very last ease before it involving an interpretation of this statute, says: "Except where otherwise provided by the bankrupt law, the courts of the United States are expressly prohibited, by section 720 ctf the Eevised Statutes, from granting a writ of injunction tO stay proceedings in a state court." Harris v. Carpenter, 91 U.S. 254. �We must, therefore, remit complainant to the probate/court for such action as that court may, after due consideration, feel bound to take. The injunction will be dissolved. De- fendants' demurrer will be sustained, and ccfmplainant's bill dismissed with costs. ���Mackate V. Mallobt and another. �(Gireuit Court, 8: D. Neu> York. " ■ ' , 1881.) �Removal—Jukisdiction— Petition. �Where a complaint flied in a state court, and a petition for the re- moval of the cause, raised an issue as to the necessary parties to the controversy, upon which the right of removal depended, ?ield, upon motion to remand before trial in the federal court, that the allega- tions of the petition must prevail. — [Ed. �In Equity. Motion to Eemand. F. N. Bangs, for plaintifif. James C. Carter, for defendants. ��� �
