28 FEDERAL REPORTER
Island, as a conveyance made with intent to delay, hinder, or defraud
creditors. Austin v. A. at W; Sprague Manufg C'0. Index U, p. 12.
The federal courts are bound to follow the decision of the highest
court of the state in the construction of a state statute. Lqjingwetl
v. Warren, 2 Black, 599; Walker v. State Harbor O0m’·rs, 17 Wall. 648;
Faivyield v. County of Gallatin, 100 U. S. 47, 52. With this decision
_ of the state court must fall those claims of title based upon execu-
tion sales under attachments made subsequent to the date of the
trust deed.
The evidence shows that the conveyance to Chafee was made in
good faith; the grantors undoubtedly expecting at the time, by this
· means, to pay their creditors in full without exhausting the whole
property. It is clear that William Sprague, by virtue of this convey-
· ance, is estopped from setting up any claim of title by adverse pos-
session as against the trustee. It is not sulhcient, however, for the
trustee to show the validity of the conveyance under which he claims
title. He must go further and make out a good title. The evidence .
on this point is defective. But from all that appears this can be
done. It is necessary, also, that the trustee should give the complain-
ant possession of the estate. This is called for by the terms of sale,
and is properly demanded by the contract. Under the circumstances,
the cause may stand over for the purpose of allowing the trustee to
take further evidence as to title, and to obtain possession of the es-
tate. 1 Sugd. Vend. 527.
Smnon v. Hua.,
(Circuit Uourt, D. California. October 16, 1884.)
1. EqurrY-P1.EAnri~:e—Dur1.roru~v—Mnm-11-merrr.
A plea of another suit pending in a state court for the same cause of action,
and that thc United States court has no jurisdiction, because of the citizenship
of complainant, is bad.
2. SAME-Two Pnmss-LEAvE or Comer.
But one plea can be set up in equity without express leave of the court.
3. SAME—ANo*rnEu Soir Pannrne.
A suit in the state court for a divorce and a division of the community prop-
erty is for a didercnt cause of action from one by the same parties in a United
States court for a decree declaring an alleged written contract of marriage
made in pursuance of section 75 of the Civil Code of California to be fraudu-
lent and void, and asking to have it canceled, and defendant perpetually en-
joined from claiming any right under it, and cannot be pleaded in abatement
of the suit in the United States court.
4. S.m;m—-Burr Psnnmo nv Srnn Comer.
A suit pending in u. state court cannot be pleaded in abatement of a suit in
s United States court, as the courts of the states and of the United States are
courts of different jurisdictions.
 ·