owuns v. OHIO cum. 11. co. 11
entire line of the Ohio Central Railroad; that on the third day of ‘
October, 1883, the same bill that was Bled in the court of common
pleas in Lucas county, in the state of Ohio, was Bled in the circuit
court of Mason county, in the state of West Virginia, and John E.
Martin, bythe o1·der of that court, on that day was appointed receiver.
On the sixteenth day of October, 1883, Mead & Johnson Bled in the
circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio, a
bill for the foreclosure of the river division mortgage of the Ohio
Central Railroad, on which process was sued out and service had on
the twenty-third day of October, 1883, and on the seventh day of
November following this bill was dismissed. On the twentieth day
of October, 1883, Owens & Johnson Bled in the same court a bill for
the same purpose, upon which process was issued and service had
thereon on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1883. On the thirtieth
day of October, 1883, the Central Trust Company of New York, in the
same court, Bled a bill for the same purpose, to which the appearance
of the railroad company was entered. On the thirty-Brst day of Oc-
tober, 1883, Martin was appointed temporary receiver under the last
bill. On the twenty-second day of October, 1883, Owens & Johnson
Bled in this court their bill of complaint on behalf of themselves, and
as the representatives of the Brst mortgage river division bondholders
of the Ohio Central Railroad Company, invoking its power to enforce
the mortgage, and asking for the appointment of a receiver. Process
was sued out thereon and service had on the defendants on the
twenty-Bfth day of the same month, and the motion for the appoint-
ment of a receiver was entered, and by order of the court set down
for hearing on the twentieth day of November following; upon the
hearing of which motion and at that time the Central Trust Company
of New York Bled their bill, claiming the right, as trustee in the Brst
mortgage and other subsequent mortgages, to control the proceedings
for the foreclosure of the mortgages and the appointment of a re-
ceiver. The two cases were heard together, and Thomas R. Sharp
was appointed receiver of that portion of the road lying in this cir-
cuit.
Upon this state of facts the complainants in this suit move for an
order extending the jurisdiction of Receiver Sharp over that portion
of the road in the Sixth circuit lying between the Ohio river and
Corning, in the state of Ohio. As a portion of this railroad is found
lying in both circuits, the Brst question that presents itself for con-
sideration is, which court Brst obtained jurisdiction over the subject-
matter in controversy? And in this connection we will Brst con-
sider the question of jurisdiction arising upon the proceedings had
in the federal tribunals. As we have before seen, Owens & Johnson
Bled their bill in the Sixth circuit on the twentieth day of October,
1883, and in this circuit on the twenty-second day of October, 1883.
Under the bill Bled in this circuit process was sued out, and service
had the day before service was had in the Sixth circuit. Not only