Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/65

WI^TEB V. BWINBUBNB. 51. �the cross-bill :wa8 filed; and Justice Nelson, in the opinion, observes that the bill could be filed in no other court. �In Jones v.Andrewi, 10 Wall. 327, it was held that a bill for an injunction to restrain pfoceedings of garnishment against the com- plainant's property, instituted in the circuit court, and also praying the benefit of a set-off against the garnisbing crediter 's demand, is not an original suit, but is a defensive or supplementary suit, in which the jurisdiction of the court does not depend on the citizenship of the parties but on the cognizanceof the original case. . �If aijudgment at law be recovered in a circuit court the defendant iij the judgment may file a bill in that court to enjoin the judgment against the representative of the plaintiff in the judgment, though that representative be a citizen of the same, state as the defendant in the judgment; it is but a continuation, in substance, of the origi- nal suit- J)unn y. Clarke,8 l?et. 1. �A creditor'a bill is held to be a mere continuation of the suit ai law, as it merely seeks to obtain the fruits of the judgment, or to remove obstacles to the remedy at law; and since, therefore, it isnot ap original suit, but rather the extension of a former controversy, a change of residence of the plaintiff to the state where the defendant resides wUl not affect: the jurisdiction of the court. Hateh v. Dorr, 4 McLean, 112. See, also, Hatfield v. Bmhnell, 1 Blatchf . 893. �In all the cases thas fat cited it will be observed that jurisdiction was Bupported on the ground that the suit in which the question of jurisdiction arose was auxiliary or supplementary to the original suii^ and it is further observable of the cases that, without exception, both suits were brought in the same court. Other authorities, show- ing iwhen creditors' bills, cross-bills, bills of review, and other depend- ent or auxiliary suits may be maintained between citizens of the satne fitate, are colleeted and cited by the learned judge of the east- ern district of Michigan in In re Sabin, 18 N. B. B. 151. �On the argument, attention was called to Noyes v. Willfird, 1 Woods^ 187, which was' a case where an assignee in bankruptcy recovered a fraudaient judgment in the district court against an alleged debtor of the bankrupt, and the judgment debtor filed a bill in the circuit court to enjoin execution upon the judgment; and it washeld that the fact that all the parties were citizens of the same state did not oust the court of jurisdiction. But I do not regard thia case as sustaining the argument in favor of jurisdiction in the case: at bar; beeause, in the case, cited, the jurisdiction of the circuit court vjas clearly maintainable under that provision of the bankrupt ��� �