HAY v. ALEXANDRIA & W. B. 00. 15
eted therein. It is conceded that the circuit court of Mason_county
had jurisdiction over the defendant company’s property, and in this
respect it was wholly unlike the case in the court of common pleas in
Lucas county. It will be observed, then, that the state court in West
Virginia acquired full and complete jurisdiction on the third day of
October, 1883, the day the bill was iiled, and that, by reason of its
removal to this court, this court’s jurisdiction relates back to that date.
Under this proceeding this court acquired jurisdiction as of that date,
which is prior to any legal proceeding instituted in the courts of Ohio,
and the jurisdiction thus acquired is not only prior, but is complete
and exclusive over the defendant company’s property. Miller v. To-
bin, 18 FED. REP. 609; Osgood v. Railroad Co. 6 Biss. 330; Armstrong
v. Mech. Nat. Bank, Id. 524; 12 Chi. Leg. N. 176; Bills V. Railroad
Oo. 13 Blatchf. 227.
But one question remains unnoticed, and that is, can this court
extend its jurisdiction over the defendant company’s property be-
yond its geographical or territorial jurisdiction. This is a trust
estate, and must be administered as an entirety for the protection of
all concerned. It is well settled that the court that first takes juris-
diction of a part of a trust estate has the legal right to administer
upon the whole. It follows that this court, having prior jurisdiction
over that portion of the trust estate found in this circuit by reason
of the jurisdiction thus acquired, has the right to administer upon
that portion of the trust estate lying between the Ohio river and
Corning, Ohio,- and an order will be entered extending the jurisdic-
tion of Receiver Sharp over the entire property of the defendant
company to that place; and in the event he is obstructed by any one
claiming to act as receiver by another tribunal, he is required and
directed to file a motion before the United States circuit court for the
Sixth circuit in Ohio, praying that court to vacate or so modify the
order appointing Receiver Martin as it may be in conflict with the
order of this court appointing him receiver, and extending his juris-
diction to Corning, Ohio. A
— HAY v. Atnxmnau & W. R Co. and others., ·
(Circuit Court E. D. Virginia. 1884.) i
3. Dncrsron or STATE Coeur-Tiznsr ’DEED—··DEFECTIVE RacrsrnA*1·roN.
· A railroad corporation executes a trust deed, giving preference to 'one of its
` . directors over other creditors, and this deed is acknowledged before, andcer-
titied hy, that director for registration, as a notary public. The court of high-
est resort of the state in which this deed is recorded pronounced that it does
not create a lien upon the property conveyed, because of its‘defective registra-
tion. The validiiy of this registration is afterwards assailed in a federal court,
` which held that it would not reopen the question of registration and would
treat the registration as null. ‘ ‘