Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/847

-ANDREWS V, SMIïH. 835 �Order of court, placing ifc in other hands, which provided for the settlement of their accounts, and that they should remaiii fenljjeet to the Order and protection of the court until their accounts should be settled. An account has.been taken by masters of that court of ail their receipts and expenditure's while 80 in possession of the roads and property, which includes ail the items claimed by the orators, and which is now pending in that court. �Important questions concerning the jurisdiction of the state court and this court arise upon these pleadings, and their consideration has been approached with such care, examîna- tion, and circumspection as their gravity has seemed to demand. The jurisdiction of the two courts as to these mat- ters is concurrent, as is expressly provided by the law of con- gress providing for this court, and which on this subject is paramount. U. S. Eev. St. § 629; Act of March 3, 1875, § 1; 18 U. S. St. at Large, 470. �In creating the circuit courts and providing for their juris- diction care has always been taken to prevent any conflict between them and state courts, and generally the courts them- selves bave been diligent each to so keep within the prescribed bounds that there should be no appearance even of interfer- ence by one with the other. To that end, when either court has, by its process oï its officers, taken any property or sub- ject of litigation into its custody, the other has carefuUy refrained from interfering with the custody or the litigation in which it was taken. When one court has possession the other will not take any proceedings which will interfere with the possession, and when one has cognizance of any litiga- tion the other will not take cognizance of the same litigation. Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548, cited for the orator to the eontrary of this, was not in the same state with the state court, and therefore did not corne within the provision as to concurrent jurisdiction; and Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 668, was not between the same parties as the suit in the state court. �It is the interference with the possession of another court whieh would ensue, that prevents taking jurisdiction in that class of cases ; and the pendency of the same identical con ����