836 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �court, " etc. Does not the f oregoing analysis of the bill, with its prayers for relief, show most distinctly that this court ia asked to enjoin the proceedings of a state court which has custody of the property in dispute, and is proceeding to determine the rights of the several parties in interest ? At present the state court has custody, but it is apprehended that it is about to turn over the possession and management of said property from the receiver to a duly-qualified assignee under the state law, over whom it has full supervision. It is not necessary to decide the bald question whether a state assignee who has given bond, etc., in a state court ean be interfered with by injunction from this court. �The force of decisions read from the United States Eeports is fuUy appreeiated, and the clear distinction observed between judgments in federal courts against state assignees, adminis- trators, etc., and the modes of enforcing said judgments, which, when rendered, are against them in their representa- tive capacity, payable out of assets in their hands. What- ever may be the apparent doubt arising from the cases cited, it seems clear that the case before this court involves no such difificulties ; for it is disclosed in the bill that its purpose is to interfere directly with pending proceedings in the state court — practically, to direct what order it shall make as to thg future custody or control of property now in the possession of its receiver; or, in other words, that its judgment shall be restricted, in a certain way, so that it cannot adjudge what, to it, law and right may seem to demand. An analysis of the authorities cited will show that in no well-considered case has a United States court ever issued an injunction, directly or indirectly, (except in bankruptcy matters,) to restrain pro- ceedings pending in a state court; nor has it respected any injunction or other mode of interference with its jurisdiction. There has seldom arisen any conflict of jurisdiction since the organization of the United States government, because both federal and state courts have, with rare exceptions, observed the obvious rule of comity, and the federal courts have strictly complied with the provisions of the aot of 1793, prohibiting injunctions of the kind claimed here. ��� �
