Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

in a State court as much as an inhibition against an injunc tion, mandamus or prohibition directed to the State court (Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co. 6 Blatchf. 362); and its interpretation is restricted by sections six hundred and forty aad six hundred and forty-six of the Revised Statutes to cases where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is originally invoked for the purpose of staying proceedings in the State courts. (Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. Rep. 24.) This section of the United States Revised Statutes prohibits Federal courts from issuing injunctions to stay proceedings in State courts, except in matters of bankruptcy. Aul where lan ls were sold by order of the bankruptcy court, the sale confirmed, and the conveyance made by the assignee, the Federal court was held to be without power to enjoin a sale of the same land under an order of the State court. (Sargent v. Helton, 115 U. S. 348; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Woodruff, 42 Fed. Rep. 463; Tuchman v. Welch, 42 Fed. Rp. 518; Carpenter v. Talbot, 33 Fed. Rep. 537; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158; Hamilton v. Walsh, 23 Fed. Rep. 420; Hunt v. Fisher, 29 Fed. Rep. 801; Yick Wo v. Crowley, 26 Fed. Rep. 207; Lander.lale Co. v. Foster, 23 Fed. Rep. 516; McWhorter v. Halsted, 24 Fed. Rep. 828; Ex parte Schulenburg, 25 Fed. Rep. 211; Weil v. Calhoun, Id. S65; Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. Ren. 851; Suess v. Noble, Id. 855; see also, French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494.) An entry upon lands by petitioner pending con lemnation proceedings in a State court will not be enjoined by a Federal court. (Dillon v. Kansas City S. B. R. Cɔ. 43 Fed. Rep. 109.)

Restriction of authority.-A court of the United States cannot enjoin proceedings in a State court. (Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; Rogers v. City of Cincinnati, 5 McLean, 337. So the Supreme Court cannot enjoin proceedings in a subordinate State court, although it has allowed a writ of error to the judgment of the appellate court. (The Slaughter-house Cases, 10 Wall. 273.) The circuit court has no jurisdiction over the procee lings of a State court. (Bridges v. Sheldon, 18 Blatchf. 517; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679.) Although the circuit court has no jurisdiction over the proceedings in a State court,

FED, PROC.- 47.

yet this section does not prevent it from releasing a defendant from process out of a State court violating its protection, or to prevent abuse of its privileges. (Bridges v. Sheldon, 18 Blatchf. 517; S. C., 7 Fed. Rep. 45; Hurst's Case, 4 Dall. 387.) So a circuit court may restrain parties from taking out criminal process under a State law which impairs the obligations of contract (Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 3 Woods, 222); nor does the section prohibit the district court, after a transfer of the ship and freight under the "Limited Liability Act," from restraining the prosecution of any suit growing out of the disaster theretofore commenced and then pending in a State court. (in re Long Island etc. Trans. Co.; 5 Fed. Rep. 627.) A circuit court cannot issue an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court. (The Slaughter-house Cases, 1 Woods, 21.) An injunction to restrain suits in the State court for the collection of taxes will not be granted (Moore v. Holliday, 4 Dill. 52); but under special circumstances a temporary injunction to restrain the collection of retrospective taxes was allowed. (Moore v. Holliday, 4 Dill. 52.) Although a party files a bill of interpleader, yet he cannot restrain a defendant from prosecuting an action pending in the State court. (City Bank v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14.) Where the jurisdiction of a court and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit have once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in another court. (Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 625.) So if a marshal is sued in a State court for taking the goods of a third person on a writ of execution, the proceedings against him cannot be enjoined. (Evans v. Pack, 7 Bent. L. J. 409.) This section prohibits the issue of an injunction to restrain the sale of property under an execution issued out of a State court, although application is made by a third party whose property is taken. (Watson v. Bondurant, 2 Woods, 175; S. C. 30 La. An. 1; Daly v. The Sheriff, 1 Woods, 175; Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. Rep. 23; contra, Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 465.) The holder of a chattel mortgage cannot enjoin the sheriff from s-lling the property under execution on a judgment against the mortgagor. (Ruggles v. Simonton, 3 Biss. 325.) Courts of the United States have jurisdiction over executors and administrators where the

parties have the requisite citizenship, and this jurisdiction is not burred by subsequent proceedings in insolvency in the State court. In such case the courts may interpose in favor of a foreign creditor to arrest the distribution of any surplus of the estate of decedent. (Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 90; see Youley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276; January v. Powell, 29 Mo. 221.) The circuit court cannot issue an injunction to prevent a police officer of a city from serving warrants of arrest issued by a State court for violation of city ord nances, claimed to be in contravention of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the treaty with China. (Yick Wo v. Crowley, 26 Fed. Rep. 207.) Between courts of concurrent jurisdiction the court first acquiring jurisdiction will not be interfered with by another court. (Davis v. Life Asso., 11 Fed. Rep. 781; Ward v. Todd, 103 U. S. 327.)

In bankruptcy courts.-Except in cases arising under the bankrupt law, a court of the United States cannot enjoin a party from proceeding in a State court (Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 349; Chaffin v. St. Louis, 4 Dill. 19; Tifft v. Ironclad Manuf. Co., 16 Blatchf. 48; Hyde v. Bancroft, 8 Bank Reg. 24); but it has been held that the Bankrupt Act does not authorize district courts to issue injunctions to State courts, nor to actors or parties litigating before them (In re Campbell, 1 Bank. Reg. 166; In re Burns, 1 Bank. Reg. 174; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 625; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How.172); and that a State court having acquired jurisdiction, a United States court has no authority to oust it. (Clark v. Binninger, 3 Bank. Reg. 518; Tenth Nat. Bank v. Sanger, 42 How. Pr. 170; Ex parte Dudley, 1 Pa. L. J. 302.) The express authority of bankruptcy courts to restrain proceedings in State courts under the bankrupt law extends only to suits against the bankrupt himself (Rev. Stats. sec. 5106; Gilbert v. Quimby, 1 Fed. Rep. 114); and the implied authority extends only to proceedings to realize the assets, and bring them into the custody of the bankrupt court. (Rev. Stats. sec. 4972; Gilbert v. Quimby, 1 Fed. Rep. 114.) So, although a party has issued an attachment from a State court to reach a dividend in bankruptcy, he cannot be restrained

by injunction from the Federal court. (Gilbert v. Quimby, 1 Fed. Rep. 111.) It may prohibit a creditor by injunction from proceeding under an execution issued out of a State court (Irving v. Hughes, 2 Bank. Reg. 61); or to enjoin a sheriff and parties litigant from selling property on execution. (In re Mallory, 61 Bank. Reg. 22; In re Lady Bryan Min. Co., 6 Bank. Reg. 252; In re Atkinson, 7 Bank. Reg. 143). It may allow the goods to be sold under the execution or may enjoin proceeding thereunder, (In re Schnepf, 1 Bank. Reg. 190.) Before the appointment of assignees the petition for the injunction must be filed by the bankrupt, but after their appointment may be filed by the assignees. (In re Bowie, 1 Bank. Reg. 628.) The commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings operates as a supersedeas of process in the hands of the sheriff and an injunction against all other proceedings, until the question of the bankruptcy shall be disposed of. (Jones v. Leach, 1 Bank. Reg. 595.) The bankrupt court may restrain a claimant of a lien obtained by collusion with the bankrupt from proceeding elsewhere to enforce the lien. (Samson v. Clark, 6 Bank. Reg. 403.) The control of the district court, sitting in bankruptcy, over proceedings in the State court over liens and mortgages existing upon the property of the bankrupt, is exercised, not over the State courts themselves, but upon the parties, through injunction or other appropriate proceedings in equity. (Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292.) Where the circuit court has jurisdiction of a case in bankruptcy, an error in granting an injunction can only be reviewed after a final decree. (Ex parte Schwab, 98 U. S. 240.)

On cause removed.-A circuit court will not order a stay of all proceedings in a State court in a cause r removed into the circuit court (Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362; Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. Rep. 23); but after removal it has jurisdiction to continue in force an injunction allowed by the State court before the removal. (Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. Rep. 458; and see Rev. Stats. sec. 640, 646; Act of March 3, 1875, sec. 4; 18 Rev. Stats. sec. 571.) If plaintiff, after removal, brings an action in a State court, upon a judgment rendered therein before removal, defendant may file a bill in the circuit court to restrain the proceedings.

(French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250.) Where a State court improperly refuses a petition for removal, and renders final judgment in a replevin suit, and orders plaintiffs to restore the property, and on their refusal to do so defendant sues on the replevin bond, the Federal court may restrain the proceedings on such suit, the injunction being merely an ancillary proceeding, and not forbidden by this section. (Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 562.)

§ 241 (721). Laws of the States, rules of decision. The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. (Rev. Stats. sec. 721.)

Section construed. This section relates to the nature and principles of evidence, and also to competency of witnesses. (Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co. 112 U. S. 250; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713.)

This section, originally section thirty-four of the Judiciary Act (1 Stats. 92), is construed only to include civil cases at common law, and not criminal offenses against the United States. (United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361.) It is limited strictly to local laws (Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 1; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546); that is to say, to the positive statute of the State (Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 1), to private statutes (Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495), and does not apply to questions of a general nature (Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546), as to contracts of a commercial nature, the true interpretation of which is sought in the doctrine of commercial jurisprudence. (Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 1; Railroad Co. v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14; Oates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 239) United States courts adopt and follow the decisions of the State courts in questions which concern merely the constitutions (Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1; Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black, 436) and statutes of the State (Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1; Morgan v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1; Jefferson Branch Bank

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »