Cole v. Oil-Well Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 06 September 1893
• Citation: 57 F. 534
• Parties: COLE v. OIL-WELL SUPPLY CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

57 F. 534

COLE v. OIL-WELL SUPPLY CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

September 6, 1893

Abel Crook, for petitioner.

Lockwood & Hill, for defendant.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

By order made in this action, one John Eaton was on July 24 1893, duly appointed receiver of the property of the defendant, within the jurisdiction of this court. Prior thereto, and on June 29, 1893, the sheriff of the county of New York had seized and taken possession of certain personal property at No. 32 Courtland street, which personal property originally belonged to the defendant corporation. The seizure by the sheriff was under a warrant of attachment issued by the state court in an action brought against the defendant, a foreign corporation, which action has since been prosecuted to judgment, execution issued, and levy made upon the property so seized. The receiver, as petitioner, applies for a summary order to the sheriff to surrender such property to the receiver. Under the facts above stated, he is not entitled to such relief. He took the property of defendant in his jurisdiction by virtue of the order of this court subject to whatever rights over the same had been acquired by prior proceedings in the state court; and it is the universal practice of the federal courts not to interfere with the state court if it has acquired custody of property prior to the entertainment by the federal court of an application for a receivership.

The petitioner relies, however, upon other facts happening before the issuance of the attachment, and which he contends entitle him to the relief prayed for. On June 19, 1893, in an action brought in the circuit court for the western district of Pennsylvania by Edward H. Cole, the plaintiff here and another plaintiff, one E. Parke Coby, against this defendant, the same John Eaton was appointed receiver of the property of said defendant corporation, wherever situated. It is conceded that Eaton's appointment by that court did not transfer to him the legal title to any property of the defendant outside of the western district of Pennsylvania. But it further appears that on June 19th the defendant executed and delivered to Eaton, as receiver under such decree, and in accordance with its terms, an assignment of its property in New York city including that in question; and it is further alleged that the property was taken possession of at 32 Courtland street by one Collins, as agent...