Opinion of the Court.

was awarded, directed to the judge of the Circuit Court, returnable on the tenth day of the next regular term, calling on him to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue. On the 6th of November a judgment of nonsuit was entered in the District Court, the plaintiff having failed to appear and prosecute the original action there. The rule of the Court of Appeals was served on the judge of the Circuit Court on the second of December, 1882, and on the railroad company on the fourth of the same month.

On the 10th of January, 1883, the railroad company filed its bill in equity in the District Court of the United States against White, as administrator, to enjoin him from proceeding any further with his application for mandamus in the Court of Appeals, and on the 12th of the same month a preliminary injunction was granted as prayed for.

On the 30th of June, 1883, a judgment was entered by the Court of Appeals awarding a peremptory mandamus, both the judge and the railroad company having answered the rule on the 20th of January previous. From this judgment a writ of error was taken to this court and a bond accepted which operated as a supersedeas. That writ was docketed here on the 30th of July.

At the November term, 1883, of the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, White, the plaintiff in the original suit, applied for a trial of his action. To this the railroad company, defendant, objected. The court declined to proceed to a trial at that term, but entered an order that it would proceed at the next term, which will begin on the 21st of April, 1884. The railroad company thereupon filed its petition in this court, praying "for a writ of prohibition, or such other process as may be deemed appropriate, directed to the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, West Virginia, and to the Honorable Homer A. Holt, judge of said court, and to the said A. E. White, administrator as aforesaid, and to Alexander F. Matthews, attorney of said White, prohibiting them, and each of them, or such of them as may be thought proper, from any and all further proceedings in the action aforesaid, until the final disposition of the aforesaid writ of error by the Supreme Court of the United States,

Opinion of the Court.

and for such other proceedings and process as the circumstances may require and justify.”

We can find no authority for any such action in this court as is here prayed. Our proceedings in this suit must be confined to such as relate to a review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the enforcement of any order we may make upon the final hearing. If we affirm the judgment, the writ awarded by the Court of Appeals can issue; if we reverse, it cannot. The supersedeas does not operate on the State Circuit Court so as to prevent it from proceeding, nor on White to prevent him from applying to that court for a trial; it simply prevents the use of the process of the Court of Appeals, under the judgment awarding the writ, to compel the Circuit Court to go on. A supersedeas stays the execution of the judgment which is under review. Anything short of an effort to enforce the judgment will not amount to a contempt of the authority of the reviewing court. If the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed in this court, and a mandamus refused, White would not be guilty in law of contempt, if, notwithstanding the refusal, he applied again to the Circuit Court to proceed with the trial.

The judgment of this court would not be a prohibition to that court against proceeding, but only a refusal to order it to proceed. Our judgment could be appealed to as authority for refusing a trial, but not as a command that it should be refused.

The Circuit Court, when, in June, 1882, it declined to order a trial, did not abandon its jurisdiction. It still retained the suit, so far as any action of its own was concerned. If a sufficient case for removal was made in the Circuit Court the rightful jurisdiction of that court is gone, and it cannot properly proceed further, but if it does proceed and does force the defendant, who applied for the removal, to a trial, the remedy is by a writ of error after final judgment, and not by prohibition or punishment for contempt. The proper practice in such cases was fully considered in Insurance Company v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214; Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457; Railroad Company v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135; Railroad Company v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 51.

If the suit in the Court of Appeals for mandamus is to be

Statement of Facts.

deemed part of the original suit in the Circuit Court, and not an independent proceeding, we have no jurisdiction of the writ of error which has been taken, because the judgment of the Court of Appeals is not a final judgment in the action. If it is an independent suit, the writ of error gives us no more control over the Circuit Court, so as to stop its proceeding in the original suit, than it does over the District Court to prevent it from punishing White for a violation of the injunction allowed against his application to the Court of Appeals for a manda

mus.

The petition is denied, with costs.

NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WOODWORTH, Administrator.

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

Argued March 18th, 1884.- Decided March 31st, 1884.

Conflict of Law-Corporation-Executor and Administrator.

A policy of life insurance, issued by a company incorporated in one State, payable to the assured, his executors or administrators, is assets for the purpose of founding administration upon his estate in another State, in which the corporation, at and since the time of his death, does business, and, as required by the statutes of that State, has an agent on whom process against it may be served.

Under § 18, chap. 3, of the Revised Statutes of Illinois, of 1874, a husband is entitled to administration on the estate of his wife, if she left property in Illinois.

Letters of administration which state that the intestate had at the time of death personal property in the State, are sufficient evidence of the authority of the administrator to sue in that State, in the absence of proof that there was no such property.

The New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of Massachusetts, issued a policy of life insurance, on September 21st, 1869, by which, for a consid eration received from Ann E. Woodworth, of Detroit, in the State of Michigan, described as "the assured in this policy,"

Statement of Facts.

and of an annual premium to be paid, it agreed to pay, at its office in Boston, the amount of $5,000, "to the assured under this policy as aforesaid, her executors, administrators or assigns, in sixty days after presentation of satisfactory proof of the death of said Ann E. Woodworth, for the benefit of her husband, S. E. Woodworth, if he shall survive her." The policy was signed by the president of the company, but was not under seal. The proof referred to was to be furnished at the Boston office. On the 10th of January, 1877, letters of administration were granted by the County Court of the county of Champaign, in the State of Illinois, on the estate of Ann E. Woodworth. The letters ran in the name of the People of the State of Illinois, and recited: "Whereas Ann E. Woodworth, of the county of Seneca, and State of New York, died intestate, as it is said, on or about the 25th day of October, A. D. 1875, having, at the time of her decease, personal property in this State, which may be lost, destroyed, or diminished in value if special care be not taken of the same;" and then proceeded: "To the end, therefore, that the said property may be collected and preserved for those who shall appear to have a legal right or interest therein, we do hereby appoint Stephen E. Woodworth, of the county of Champaign, and State of Illinois, administrator of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits, which were of the said Ann E. Woodworth at the time of her decease, with full power and authority to secure and collect the said property and debts, wheresoever the same may be found in this State, and in general to do and perform all other acts which now are or hereafter may be required of him by law."

On the 11th of February, 1878, Stephen E. Woodworth, as administrator of the estate of Ann E. Woodworth, deceased, commenced an action at law, in a court of the State of Illinois, against the company, on the policy, to recover the $5,000 named therein. The summons was served on the company in Cook County, Illinois, by reading and by delivering a copy thereof to one Cronkhite, "attorney for service of legal process of the company in the State of Illinois, on the 20th of February, 1878, the president thereof not being found in the county. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was "Stephen E.

Statement of Facts.

Woodworth, who sued as the administrator of the estate of Ann E. Woodworth, deceased, for the benefit and use of S. E. Woodworth." It averred that said Ann E. Woodworth died October 21st, 1875, at Seneca Falls, New York; "that the said Stephen E. Woodworth, for whose use and benefit this suit is brought, is the said S. E. Woodworth mentioned in the said policy of insurance as the husband of the said Ann E. Woodworth, and the same party for whose benefit the said defendant contracted and agreed, in said policy of insurance, to pay the said sum specified therein; that the said Ann E. Woodworth was, at the time of the making, executing and delivering the said policy of insurance as aforesaid, the wife of the said Stephen E. Woodworth, and that they were at the said time living together as lawful husband and wife, and that, at the time of the decease of the said Ann E. Woodworth as aforesaid, she left her surviving her said husband, the said Stephen E. Woodworth, who since her death has been a resident of the county of Champaign, State of Illinois;" and that the plaintiff was duly appointed such administrator by said letters. The declaration contained three special counts and money counts in assumpsit.

The defendant petitioned for the removal of the suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. It stated, in the petition, that it was, at the time of the commencement of this suit, and still is, "a foreign corporation duly incorporated under and by the laws of the State of Massachusetts and doing business in that State," and had and still has its principal office or place of business at Boston; that the plaintiff was and is a citizen of Illinois; and "that it was served with process of summons herein" on February 20th, 1878, the service being on said Cronkhite, " its general agent at Chicago, in the said State of Illinois." The State court allowed the removal.

Issue being joined, the case was tried before a jury, which found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $5,348.73, for which amount, with costs, judgment was entered. The defendant sued out a writ of error. There was a bill of exceptions, the whole of which is as follows: