Mu z. ..s CLAIRE. &9
MAY v. Ln Cnxmn and others.
(Circuit Court, S. D. I lllnois. July, 1883.)
Rnmovar. or Gauss: rnom om: Unrrmn Brxrms Craourr Comvr ·ro Anornmn.
Section 615 of the Revised Statutes. authorizing a cause to be transferred
from one circuit " into the circuit court of the next adjoining state, or the next '
adjoining circuit court," must be construed as giving all the powers necessary
to the court in order to carry the litigation between the parties into judgment
or decree.
Dnunmonn, J. This case was transferred from the circuit court of
the United States in Iowa. to the circuit court of the United States
for the southern district of Illinois, under section 615 of the Revised
Statutes. At the time of the transfer, George L. Davenport, the ex- »
ecutor of Antoine Le Claire, had answered the bill. After the trans-
fer, Davenport resigned as executor, and Louis A. Le Claire was, by
the proper court in Iowa, appointed administrator with the will an-
nexed in the place of George L. Davenport, and Le Claire accepted
the appointment. In this court, on the ninth of December last, the
parties appeared by their counsel, and it is stated in the record that
Davenport had ceased to be executor, and that Louis A. Le Claire
had been appointed executor of the estate of Antoine Le Claire in his
stead, and that he had accepted such appointment, and thereupon
Louis A. Le Claire was made defendant in the cause and a subpoena
ordered to issue against him, which, not having been properly served
upon him, on the sixteenth of February last another subpoena was
directed to be issued to the marshal of the district of Iowa, and that
subpcsna has been served upon him. It is objected on the part of
the defendant that this action of the court was unauthorized, and
that Louis A. Le Claire is not properly in court and subject to its s
jurisdiction. ·
Assuming that the case has been brought within the proper rule
on the subject, namely, the hfty-sixth rule in equity, and that as to
Davenport there was an abatement of the suit, and that it has been ‘
revived as to Louis A. Le Claire, the question is whether the court
had the right to bring him before it, so that he has become subject
to its jurisdiction by the action named; and I am of the opinion that
it had. I agree that the circuit court had no right to issue any pro-
cess to be executed outside of the district, and particularly in the
district of another state, unless authorized by law; but it is not neces-
sary that the authority should be expressly given by the act of con-
gress. It is sufficient, if it can be clearly deduced from the legisla-
tion of congress, that it is indispensably necessary in order to carry
into effect the action of the court which the law of congress has
authorized. Now, in this case, it is very clear when the 615th
section authorized a case to be transferred from one circuit "into
v.18,no.2-4