‘ 18 FEDERAL nnronrmn.
state courts of general original jurisdiction, it may also be pursued in
the corresponding federal courts. A mechanic’s lien may be fore-
closed in the federal courts. So, where proceedings for the condem-
nation of land and the assessment of damages therefor are taken,
they are, as has been repeatedly held, removable to and triable in
the federal courts. See, as bearing upon this general question, Strong
v. Goldman, 8 Biss. 552; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1057; Lackland v. Gar-
esche, 56 Mo. 267 .· This is not the case of a naked statutory right, with
a procedure for its enforcement, which is not adjustable to the ordi-
nary processes and practices of the courts, and in which the right
is limited by and enforceable only in the statutory remedy.
Finally, it is insisted that the plaintiffs, being only general cred-
itors, and not having, as yet, reduced their claims to judgment, have
no standing in a court of equity to enforce such claims as against
these transfers. The opinion in the case of Dahlman v. Jacobs, supra,
sustains this view, but the decision there was subsequently set aside
»in the same case. 16 Fan. REP. 614. True, in this latter opinion,
nothing is said as to the specific ground upon which the former
was based, so that opinion was not expressly overruled; but in view
of the decision of the supreme court of the United States in Case
v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688, I am constrained to rule against the
defendants on this proposition. In that case it was decided that
"whenever a creditor has a trust in his favor, or a lien upon property
for- the debt due him, he may go into equity without exhausting his
remedy at law." The first clause of this decision covers this case.
The plaintiffs seek to charge the defendants, holding certain property
as trustees for them and other .oreditors. The gravamen of the suit
is the enforcement of a trust. Strike that out and nothing is left.
And, in accordance with that decision, it must be held that a general
creditor may, without reducing his claim to judgment, proceed in
equity to charge one holding the property of his debtor received un- ·
der such an assignment or transfer as a trustee for the benefit of
creditors. Ins. Oo. v. Transp. Oo. 10 FED.   596; Same v. Same,
13 Fan. Bar. 516; Batchetder v. Altheimer, 10 Mo. App. 181; Holt v.
Bancroft, 30 Ala. 193; 1 Story, Eq. J ur. §§ 546, 547. - These are all
the substantial questions presented.
The demurrer must therefore be overruled, and defendants will
have leave to answer by the September rules.