Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/812

GBISWOLD ». CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO. 797 �would be true if the compromise agreement was net binding upon them. The amount to be paid before anything would remain to apply on these bonds would not appear, and consequently whether anything would be left to go to the bondholders would not in either case appear. The bill ahould show deflnitely and distinctly, not merely a right in somebody to equitable relief, but a right in the oratora to equitable relief against the defendants. The demurrer is sustained. ���GaiawoijD and others ». CbntbaIi Vbbmont E. Co. and othera. �(Oireuit Cowrt, B. Vermont. October Term, 1881.) �1. State and Fbderal Coubts— Confmct of Jurisdiction. �The fact that the property is being administered upon in proceedings taken in a State court, and that the plaintiit might apply to that court for relief, is no bar to the institution of proceedings in the circuit court of the United States. �In Equity. �Prout e Walker, for orators. �Benjamin F. Fifteld, Geo. F. Edmunds, and Damei lioberts, for defendants. �Wheelee, D. J. The orators are citizens of New York, and exec- utors in that state of George Griswold, late a citizen of that state, and bringthis bill to enforoe liens upon rolling stock and earnings of roll- ing stock of the Vermont Central and Vermont & Canada Eailroads, pledged by some of the defendants while in possession of those roads and the Central Vermont Eailroad Company, their successor in pos- session, by consent of parties and order of the court of chancery of the state of Vermont thereupon, for the security of several series of equip- ment loans in which the orators, as executors, invested. �Some of the defendants have demurred, assigning for cause that owners of the different series of bonds have no common interest in the securities; that the bonds are not referred to as a part of the bill, nor made a part of, nor attached to, the bill; that the doings of the managers in possession prior to the possession of the Central Vermont Eailroad Company cannot properly be joined with the doings of that Company; and that on the face of the bill it appears that this court bas not jurisdiction. �The Central Vermont Eailroad Company bas pleaded the proceed- ings of the state court of chancery in bar to the jurisrliction of this ��� �