12 rnnsnxn nmroarnn. »
was this true, but there was an absolute seizure of “the res" under th z
proceedings in this court, while, under the bill filed in the Sixth cir-
cuit, there was no seizure. It will be observed that every step nec-
essary to complete tl1e jurisdiction of this court was taken before
process was served on the defendant company under the bill filed in
the Sixth circuit. But it is claimed that the filing of the bill iirst in
the Sixth circuit, which in this proceeding is the commencement of
the suit, confers jurisdiction. This of necessity cannot be so. Other
necessary steps must be taken to bring the parties before the court,
before a complete jurisdiction is acquired. Until that is clone, the
court could make no order that would affect the rights of a party.
The usual mode is by service of process. It may be, and in some
cases is, done by an order of the court directing a seizure of the prop-
erty, when some urgent necessity requires it, before service is had.
In this case no such order was made, and we must therefore look to
the service of process to ascertain which court 1'irst acquired jurisdic-
tion. It is true that process was sued out first under the bill filed in
the Sixth circuit, but service of process was first had under the one
filed in this circuit. We therefore conclude that, as between these
proceedings, the process of this court being first served on the defend-
ant company, it gave this court full, complete, and prior jurisdiction
over it, and the right to grant the relief prayed for inthe bill. Union
Mat. L. Ins. Co. v. Univ. 0fC'lticago, 6 F110. REP. 443; Riggs v. Jehu-
son Oo. 6 Wall. 196. ‘ _ ,
It is not contended that any seizure of "the res" was ever made un-
der either of the bills of the bondholders filed in the Sixth circuit.
On the contrary, it was stated on the hearing of the motion for a re-
ceiver in this court, and not denied, but in fact conceded, that the
court in the Sixth circuit refused the motion for a receiver either
under the bill nled by Mead & Johnson on the sixteenth day of Octo-
ber,·or underthe bill filed by Owens & Johnson on the twentieth day
of October,,(now the complainants in this court,) upon the distinct
ground that no sufficient showing had been made that the trustee, the
Central Trust Company, had declined to act. For this reason the
court in that circuitnot only refused. an order of publication against
other necessary defendants, but declined to grant any relief prayed for in
eitherbill against the defendant company, the legal effect of which
e was to- discontinue further proceedings under both bills. That this
was the position of the court is apparent, for the reason that shortly
after the trustee, the Central Trust Company, nled its bill before it, hav-
ingthelsameobject in view, to which the defendant company imme-
diately appeared, a receiver was appointed under it without regard
to either ofthe preceding bills, both of which, as we are advised, were
afterwards dismissed. ,, 3 g - j . . . A =
_ In the-bill filed in this court it was distinctly alleged, and established
by proof, that-one of the complainants had requested the trustee in the
first mortgage, the Central Trust Company, to-bring a suit of foreclos-