cr.A1>1= v. nrrrmu. 17
the state. While, if this was a new question, I confess my own con-
clusions would be different, and in harmony with the decisions of Nat. -
Bank v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 28; Farwell v. Howard, 26»Iowa, 381;
Doremus v. O’Harra, 1 Ohio St. 45; Atkinson v. Tomlinson, Id. 241;
and other cases cited by counsel for defendants; yet I think there has
been such a course of decision in this circuit as to establish the rule in
the United States courts for this state in accordance with the opinion
in-Martin v. Hausmon, supra, and until there be some authoritative
construction of the statute by the supreme court of thellnited States,
or of the state,.i shall follow the rule laid down as above. I feel the
more constrained to do this, as such a construction, securing an equal
distribution of the property of an insolvent among all his creditors,
is manifestly most just and equitable.
Second. It is insisted that if this instrument is to be treated as a
general assignment under the statute for the benefit of all creditors, A
the state courts have exclusive jurisdiction; and that the remedy of
the plaintilf was by citing the supposed assignee to appear in the
state courts and distribute the property among all the creditors in ac-
cordance with that statute. This claim cannot be sustained. The
mere fact that rights are created by virtue of a state/statute, and
proceedings made for the enforcement of those rights in the courts of
the state, does not prevent a foreign creditor from asserting the same
rights in the courts of the United States. The question here is not
whether the federal courts can take possession of property already in
the custody of the state courts, or whether they can supersede or in-
terfere with any action of the latter, but whether, no action having
been taken in the latter, the federal courts are without jurisdiction to
enfo1·ce rights under the statutes of the state, and for which a special
mode of procedure is prescribed. It must be borne in mind that the
rights asserted in these cases are not wholly statutory. The transfer
‘ of property by assignment, bill of sale, or mortgage is a common·law
right, and the statute only prescribes the effect of such a transfer by
an insolvent; it does not create, but only regulates, the right. It is
like that legislation which determines, as between the mortgagor and
mortgagee, the right of possession, or which requires notice to give
validity as against subsequent purchasers. So as to the procedure. A
Jurisdiction over the assigned property is by the statute given to the
state courts. It could not well be otherwise. Methods of procedure
are prescribed; but such is the case as to general rules of practice.
The state law enacts them, and the federal courts follow them.
There is nothing of a substantial character iu the methods prescribed
which makes it impossible for courts of general jurisdiction, like the
circuit courts of the United States, to take possession of assigned
property and dispose of it in accordance with the terms of the state
statute. And where the question arises solely on the matter of pro-
cedure, as a rule I think it may be afhrmed that if the proceeding is
one which by the terms of the state statute may be pursued in the
v.21F.no.1——2