Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/805

T90 TEDEBAL REPOBTER. �continue to act as such receiver and manager, and denies that it is in possession without right, and that it ought to be compelled to sur- render its possession to the Vermont & Canada Eailroad Company, and prays judgment whether it ought to answer further. The pru- ceedings upon which it was placed in possession show that certain persons were, in regular course, made receivers of this road, with other raiiroad property, to operate the roads, and out of the income to pay the rent to the Vermont & Canada Eailroad Company ; that pursuant to an agreement between the parties, according to its terms embodied in a decree, the then receivers continued to operate the roads according to the provisions of the agreement and decree, by which they were to operate them and apply the income to the pay- ment of the rent; then to the payment of the first-mortgage bonds of the Vermont Central Eailroad ; then to the second-mortgage bonds of the Vermont Central Eailroad; and then to pay it to the Vermont Central Eailroad Company ; and that upon the joint petition of those receivers and their suocessors, and the Central Vermont Eailroad Company, a decree was made by which the Central Vermont Eailroad Company was placed in possession in their stead. �The orators claim that the prior possessors had lost their right to this road through their non-payment of rent, and that the transfer to the Central Vermont Eailroad Company was merely a transfer by one to the other, although sanctioned by the court, and that the transferes took no greater or different rights than the transferors had. The defendants claim that the transfer was ordered by the court ; that the rights of the Central Vermont Eailroad Company, under the transfer, cannot be inquired into anywhere except in that court ; and that they are valid everywhere else against all claimants. The right of the orators, denied by the plea, is the same which they set up and seek to enforce by their Mil, and which they claim to have tried and determined upon the answer of the defendants in the usual course. As stated before, the parties are citizens of different states, and this is a suit in which there is a controversy between them, and which those bringing it have the right to have determined in this court, unless there is some unusual reason for turning them out of court. �A-s said by Mr. Justice Campbell in Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170: "But the courts of the United States are bound to proceed to judg- ment, and to afford redress to suitors before them, in every case to which their jurisdiction extends. They cannot abdicate their author- ity or duty in any case in favor of another jurisdiction." This is ��� �