No state court, under section 5242 of the Kevised Statutes, can issue an injunction against a national bank prior to final judgment.1 This would seem to cover any injunction against officers of the bank which would suspend the operations of the bank. But whether it would cover an injunction against a particular officer, not a managing officer, of the bank, who was enjoined from acting in the bank, is a matter of some doubt. Certainly the words of the statute do not cover such a case. But an injunction directed against the board of directors would be prohibited, as well as an injunction against the cashier or any general officer of the bank interfering with the operations of the bank. But a federal court may enjoin a national bank, and it may continue, after the cause is removed, an injunction improperly granted by a state court.2 As we have already seen, an attachment against a national bank issued by any court is void.3

16Cadle v. Tracy, 11 Blatch. 101; Crocker v. Marine Nat. Bank, 101 Mass. 240; Miss. Riv. TeL Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 74 111. 217.

17 Casey v. Adams, 102 U. S. 66.

18 First Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141; Lee v. Citizens' Bank, 5 Ohio Dec. 21.

1 See Sec. 336, ante, and Pacific Nat Bank v. Mixter, 124 U. S. 721; Hower v. Weiss Malting Co., 55 Fed. R 356,14 U. S. App. 210.

2 Hower v. Weiss Malting Co., 55 Fed. R 356, 14 U. S. App. 210.

3 See Sec. 336, ante. If the federal courts have not jurisdiction of suits for winding up national banks under section 4, 25 Stat. 433, and if a state court cannot grant an injunction, it is difficult to see how a suit of that character can be successfully conducted, unless some stockholder who is a non-resident can be found to bring the action. See Sec. 350, ante, as to this matter.