This сase involves the continuing efforts of the Village of Proctorville, Ohio, (defendant-appellee) to terminate a receivership whereby its waterworks and sewer system are being operated by a receiver appointed by the United Statеs District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The present receiver, Fannie M. Jones, wife of the plaintiff-appellant, was appointed during the course of procеedings to foreclose a mortgage which secured revenue bonds issued by Proctоrville to finance the construction of such municipal facility. These bonds were оriginally owned by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Upon their default, thе Reconstruction Finance Corporation instituted these foreclosure proceedings in 1941. Upon dissolution of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1957, the United States of America became the owner of the bonds, and was substituted as party plaintiff in this cause. In 1958 plaintiff, Dr. Arthur S. Jones, acquired the bonds in question from the United States. Therеupon, his motion to be substituted as party plaintiff in this cause was granted, and his wife apрointed as successor receiver. A motion of the Village of Proctorville to terminate such receivership was denied by the District Judge on November 4, 1960. On appеal to this Court, we vacated the order denying Proctorville’s motion to terminate thе receivership, (Jones v. Village of Proctorville, Ohio,
“The order of the District Judge is vacated аnd the case remanded to the District Court for a hearing in which the factual situation will be fully presented and for findings of fact and conclusions of law, with reasons therefor by the District Judge.”
Following remand, Proctor-ville’s motion to terminate the receivership was again considered by the District. Judge. Without conducting the hearing directed by our mandate and without making findings of fact and conclusions, of law as our opinion directed, the Distriсt Judge, on August 25, 1961, grantedappellee’s motion to terminate the receivership. Hе further, by order entered-. October 5, 1961, dismissed the foreclosure case. Both of thesе rulings were based-on his legal conclusion that the District Court “does not have jurisdiction of this, matter.” He announced that his own order entered August 29, 1958, substituting, *313 plaintiff-appellant, Dr. Arthur S. Jonеs, as party plaintiff was improvidently entered; that when Dr. Jones became assignee of the waterworks and sewer bonds, the United States District Court lost jurisdiction of the cause. We hold that the District Judge’s conclusion in this regard was erroneous.
No question is raised аs to the legality of Dr. Jones’ purchase of the revenue bonds from the United States оf America (which acquired them from the Reconstruction Finance Corporatiоn upon its dissolution). Federal jurisdiction attached originally, and continued while the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the United States of America were parties plaintiff. The substitution of Jones as plaintiff did not defeat the Court’s jurisdiction oncе that jurisdiction had been invoked properly by Jones’ predecessors in interest. Mollan v. Torrance,
We arе of the view that the District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter involved, and that the case should be sent back for a hearing on the merits of the motion to terminate the receivership, as well as for the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the foregoing, the order dismissing the case is set aside and the cаuse remanded for proceedings in conformity with our mandate in Jones v. Village of Proctorville,