Where the trustees of a second mortgage on a railroad had begun a foreclosure suit, making the trustee of the first mortgage a party, and receivers had been appointed and taken possession, it was held that the first mortgagee should not be allowed to bring an independent foreclosure suit, but must seek the relief he wished in the suit instituted by the second mortgagee. So, where a prisoner is held under the criminal process of one court of the United States or of a Territorial court, or other court created by Congress, it seems that he cannot lawfully be arrested under the authority of another Federal court until the final determination of the first proceeding in which he was first seized and taken into custody." § 11. Illustrations of equitable jurisdiction in the Federal courts.-The following instances where Federal courts of equity have assumed, and where they have refused to take jurisdiction in equity, the subject-matter and the parties being within their jurisdiction, although by no means exhaustive, may be useful to the practitioner. It has been held that bills in equity will be sustained when filed by the United States to determine a controversy as to the boundaries between a State and a Territory; to compel the cancellation of illegal contracts between a railroad company and a telegraph company, when legal proceedings were authorized by statute; to enforce their priority of payment out of a trust fund; to cancel a land patent, or a patent for an invention' which had been obtained by fraud, or a land patent which had been by a mistake of law issued in violation of a statute, or, it seems, a certificate of naturalization obtained by fraud. By a municipal corporation to enjoin 6 Mercantile T. Co. v. Atlantic & Fed. R. 511; s. c., 22 Fed. R. 653; P. R. Co., 70 Fed. R. 518. Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 147 U. S. 165. 'In re Johnson, 167 U. S. 120, 125. § 11. U. S. v. State, 143 U. S. 621. 2 U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 160 U. S. 1. 3 Hunter v. U. S., 5 Pet. 172. 4 Moffat v. U. S., 112 U. S. 24; U. S. v. Trinidad Coal & Coke Co., 137 U. S. 160. 5 U. S. v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315; U. S. v. Gunning, 18 "Moffat v. U. S., 112 U. S. 24; U. S. v. Gunning, 18 Fed. R. 511; s. c., 22 Fed. R. 653. 7 Mullan v. U. S., 118 U. S. 271; McLaughlin v. U. S., 107 U. S. 526; Western Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 108 U. S. 510. See U. S. v. Reed, 53 Fed. R. 405. 8 U. S. v. Norsch, 42 Fed. R. 417. the sale on execution of property held by it in trust. To enjoin the head of a department of the national government from acting beyond the scope of his authority to the prejudice of the complainant. By a legatee against an executor" and by one of the next of kin against an administrator and his sureties,12 to recover the complainant's share of a decedent's estate. By a married woman to recover money which belongs to her separate estate. By a single man to have declared null and void a paper purporting to be a marriage contract executed by him." To set aside a contract obtained by fraud.15 To set aside a land patent issued in violation of a statute.16 To reform an instrument executed by mistake. To set aside a conveyance obtained for a grossly inadequate consideration from a man in a state of intoxication, partly caused by the acts of the defendant.18 By the beneficiary of a trust against his trustee and a debtor of the trust estate.19 By the holder of a corporate bond or other claim to enforce his lien upon tolls or other income pledged to secure its payment.20 By a stockholder in a corporation to recover its money fraudulently misappropriated by its directors. By a stockholder against a corporation to compel the transfer of stock fraudulently transferred to another; 22 and to compel the transfer of stock to its equitable owner, unless it has been acquired unconscientiously or for speculative purposes, or perhaps when the stock is of a kind that can be readily bought in open market. To compel specific performance of a 24 23 18 Thackrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499. 19 U. S. v. Myers, 2 Brock. 516. 20 Good Templars' L. Ass'n v. United L. I. Ass'n, 59 Fed. R. 220: Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Central Vt. Ry. Co., 85 Fed. R. 87. See Townsend v. Vanderwerker, 160 U. S. 171; Vallette v. White W. V. C. Co., 4 McLean, 192. 21 Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 260. 22 Kilgour v. N. O. Gas-Light Co., 2 Woods, 144. 23 Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299. 24 Mississippi & Mo. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 91 U. S. 643; Foll's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 434, 438; Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick Co., 135 U. S. 457. 25 Ross v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., contract for the sale of a patent-right. To compel specific performance of a contract to issue an insurance policy, and in the same suit to compel payment of the policy." In Virginia, by a creditor of an insolvent firm which is disposing of its assets in fraud of creditors, filed on behalf of the other creditors as well as himself, and praying the appointment of a receiver, an injunction against any interference by others with the firm assets and the distribution of those assets among the creditors equally.28 By a trustee and his beneficiary to obtain possession of land subject to the trust.29 To recover from a bank money of the plaintiff deposited by a third person in the latter's name.30 To enjoin a township from setting up, as a defense to an action upon bonds issued by it, the accidental omission of the town seal thereon. By a judgment creditor against a city for an accounting of taxes collected by it which had been pledged for the payment of complainant's demand. To enforce a decree for the payment of money, at least when made by another court of equity.33 To set aside an invalid tax deed, or a deed executed under a decree of a court which had no jurisdiction over the matter, when the invalidity or want of jurisdiction must be made to appear by facts not apparent upon the deed itself. To enforce the payment of alimony directed to be paid in the final judgment or decree of a State court.35 To set aside a judgment obtained by accident, mistake, or fraud. To set aside an award by arbitrators upon allegations of misconduct not apparent on the face of the award, nor affecting the jurisdiction of the arbitrators." By a creditor of a decedent to set 1 Woolw. 26, 33; Fallon v. Railroad 28 Fink v. Patterson, 21 Fed. R. 602. 29 Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. 202. 30 Union S. Y. Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U. S. 411, 420; National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54. (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 574. See infra, § 12, notes 6, 7, 8, 9. 33 Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. 253, 262. But see Tilford v. Oakley, Hempst. 197. 34 Ritchie v. Sayers, 100 Fed. R. 520. But see Little Rock Junction Co. v. Burke (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 83; Morri son v. Marker, 93 Fed. R. 692. 35 Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 Knapp v. Knapp, 59 Fed. R. 641. Cf. Johnson v. Johnson, 13 Fed. R. 193; Bowman v. Bowman, 30 Fed. R. 849. 36 Metcalf v. Williams, 104 U. S. 93, 31 Bernards Township v. Stebbins, 95. 109 U. S. 341. 37 Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Bonne 32 City of New Orleans v. Fisher Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. R. 151, 156. 42 39 aside a fraudulent conveyance of his estate made after his death by the order of a court.38 By a judgment creditor to apply to the satisfaction of his debt any interest which his debtor may hold in a patent or copyright, or in a license to use a patented invention.40 In the absence of any statutory restrictions, by a resident taxpayer in a county to prevent an illegal dispo sition of the county funds, or the illegal creation of a debt which he in common with the other property holders there may be compelled to pay." In certain cases, by a landowner to prevent an assessment for betterment under an unconstitutional statute. For an injunction against irremediable injury to property pending an action of ejectment, although filed by a party out of possession. To set aside and to declare null and void a municipal ordinance which impairs the operation of a contract with the complainants, when the invalidity of the ordinance does not appear upon its face, but must be proved by evidence aliunde, and it is a cloud upon the title of the complainants to a franchise." To compel the assignment to a principal by his agent of judgments recovered by the latter for the benefit of the former. Under special circumstances, to compel specific performance of a lease of a railroad or line of electric wire and a guaranty of the covenants therein contained, and of an agreement to allow a telegraph company to use a railway track on equitable terms.47 By a corporation, and in special cases by its stockholders and by its mortgagee, to enjoin a State railroad commission and other State officers from executing an order unauthorized by law or an unconstitutional statute.48 To enjoin a State board of 45 38 Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640. 39 Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 126. See Maitland v. Gibson, 79 Fed. R. 136, cited infra, §§ 21, 96, 349a, 380. Whether a Federal court will entertain a creditor's bill founded upon the judgment of a State court within the district has been doubted. Davis v. Davis, 65 Fed. R. 380. But that it can be was held in Bacon v. Harris, 62 Fed. R. 99; Bidwell v. Huff, 103 Fed. R. 362. 42 Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U. S. 611. 43 Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 537. 44 Los Angeles v. Los Angeles C. Water Co., 177 U. S. 558, 568, 580. 45 Burke v. Davis, 63 Fed. R. 456. 46 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. St. L., A. & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. I. & St. L. R. Co., 9 Biss. 144. 47 Franklin Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 145 U. S. 459. 48 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466; 40 Matthews v. Green, 19 Fed. R. Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. Co., 92 Fed. R. 714; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & 649. 41 Field, J., in Crampton v. Za- T. Co., 154 U. S. 362. But see infra, briskie 101 U. S. 601, 609. § 37. equalization from certifying to the different counties an assessment of a railroad for taxation at a higher percentage of its real value than the assessment of other property by the county officers, although the board had assessed the railroad at no more than its value, and the State Constitution ordained that all property be taxed according to its value, when, if the complainant was remitted to its remedy at law, a cloud would be cast upon its title and it would be obliged to bring at least thirty-five suits to obtain relief.49 53 To compel an accounting by persons standing in a trust relation to the plaintiff," and by those against whom an action for account render would lie at common law," namely, guardians in socage, bailiffs, receivers, and merchants in their dealings with each other; 52 but not otherwise, unless the accounts are mutual or very complicated and intricate," or the accounting is supplemental to some other equitable relief.55 For example, an account will not be decreed against the infringer of a patent upon a bill filed after the term of the patent has expired; 56 but a bill filed only a few days before the expiration of a patent may be sustained, if it is possible to obtain equitable relief during the life of the patent," unless under the prac 49 Taylor v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R. 350, 356, 358. Cf. Sanford v. Poe (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R. 546; Ogden City v. Armstrong, 168 U. S. 224. See infra, § 12. 50 Pacific R. of Mo. v. Atlantic & Pac. R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 277; Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 Pet. 494, 502; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205. 51 Mitchell v. Manufacturing Co., 2 Story, 648; Linson v. Hutton, 98 U. S. 79; Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 Pet. 494, 502; U. S. v. National Bank, 73 Fed. R. 379. 52 Bispham's Equity, sec. 481; 1 Co. Litt. 90 b; 1 Co. Litt. 172 a; Bacon's Abr., Account, A.; Buller's Nisi Prius, 127; Earl of Devonshire's Case, 11 Coke, 89. 53 Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; Consol. Safety Valve Co. v. Ashton Valve Co., 26 Fed. R. 319; Lord v. Whitehead, etc. Mach. Co., 24 Fed. R. 801; Gunn v. Brinckley Car Works & Mfg. Co., 66 Fed. R. 382. 54 Kilbourn v. Sutherland, 130 U. S. 505; John Crossley Sons v. New Orleans, 20 Fed. R. 352; Pacific R. Co. v. Atlantic & Pac. R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 277; Gunn v. Brinckley C. W. & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 382; Baker v. Biddle, Bald. 394; Blakeley v. Biscoe, Hempst. 114; Kilbourn v. Sutherland, 130 U. S. 505. But see Lord v. Whitehead, etc. Mach. Co., 24 Fed. R. 801; Adams v. Bridgewater Iron Co., 26 Fed. R. 324; Hagenbeck v. Hagenbeck Zoo. A. Co., 59 Fed. R. 14. 55 Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788; Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189. 56 Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; Brooks v. Miller, 28 Fed. R. 615, 617. 57 Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71; Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 324; |