APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The single question presented by this appeal is that of the jurisdiction of the Federal court to appoint a receiver, and take the railroad property out of the possession of the receiver appointed by the state court. In such cases, as was held in Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U.S. 324, it is essential that the question of jurisdiction alone should be certified to this court from the trial court. But under the authority of United States v. John, 155 U.S. 109, and In re Lehigh Company, 156 U.S. 322, the statement in the last order quoted from the record taken in connection with the petition upon which it was founded must be held to be a sufficient certificate. It is not necessary that the word "certify" be formally used. It is sufficient if
there is a plain declaration that the single matter which is by the record sent up to this court for decision is a question of jurisdiction, and the precise question clearly, fully, and separately stated. No mere suggestion that the jurisdiction of the court was in issue will answer. This court will not of itself search, nor follow counsel in their search of the record to ascertain whether the judgment of the trial court did or did not turn on some question of jurisdiction. But the record must affirmatively show that the trial court sends up for consideration a single definite question of jurisdiction. And that is here shown. The petition for an appeal is upon the single ground that the court wrongfully jurisdiction of the property, because it was then in the possession of the state court, and in the order allowing the appeal it is explicitly stated that "this appeal is granted solely upon the question of jurisdiction," and the court at the same time reserved to itself the right, which it subsequently exercised, of determining what portions of the proceedings should be incorporated into the record sent here for the purpose of presenting this question.
Had the Circuit Court of the United States, when this property was in the possession of the receiver appointed by the state court, the power to appoint another receiver and take the property out of the former's hands? We are of opinion that it had not. For the purposes of this case it is unnecessary to decide whether, as between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, when proceedings are commenced in the one court with the view of the appointment of a receiver, they may be continued to the completion of actual possession, and whether, while those proceedings are pending in a due and orderly way, the other court can, in a suit subsequently commenced, by reason of its speedier modes of procedure seize the property, and thus prevent the court in which the proceedings were first commenced from asserting its right to the possession. Gaylord v. Fort Wayne &c. Railroad, 6 Bissell, 286-291, cited in Moran v. Sturges, 154 U.S. 256-270 High on Receivers, 3d ed. sec. 50. Of course, the question can fairly arise only in a case in which process has been served, and in which the express object of the bill, or at least one express
object, is the appointment of a receiver, and where possession by such officer is necessary for the full accomplishment of the other purposes named therein. The mere fact that, in the progress of an attachment or other like action, an exigency may arise, which calls for the appointment of a receiver, does not make the jurisdiction of the court, in that respect, relate back to the commencement of the action.
In Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Co., 112 U.S. 294, 301, a question was presented as to the time that jurisdiction attaches. Mr. Justice Matthews, after quoting from Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308, and Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 336, observed: "But the land might be bound, without actual service of process upon the owner, in cases where the only object of the proceedings was to enforce a claim against it specifically, of a nature to bind the title. In such cases the land itself must be drawn within the jurisdiction of the court by some assertion of its control and power over it. This, as we have seen, is ordinarily done by actual seizure, but may be done by the mere bringing of the suit in which the claim is sought to be enforced, which may, by law, be equivalent to a seizure, being the open and public exercise of dominion over it for the purposes of the suit."
Undoubtedly the Circuit Court had authority under the bill filed June 6, 1892, to make the order appointing the receiver and taking possession of the property. Even if it were conceded that the bill was imperfect and that amendments were necessary to make it a bill complete in all respects, it would not follow that the court was without jurisdiction. The purpose of the bill -- the relief sought -- was, among other things, the possession of the property by a receiver to be appointed by the court, and when the court adjudged the bill sufficient, and made the appointment, that appointment could not be questioned by another court, or the possession of the receiver thus appointed disturbed. The bill was clearly sufficient to uphold the action then taken.
While the validity of the appointment made by the Circuit Court on June 6, 1892, cannot be doubted, yet, when that court thereafter accepted a bond in lieu of the property,
discharged the receiver, and ordered him to turn over the property to the railroad, and such surrender was made in obedience to this order, the property then became free for the action of any other court of competent jurisdiction. It will never do to hold that after a court, accepting security in lieu of the property, has vacated the order which it has once made appointing a receiver and turned the property back to the ...