D. E. Loewe & Co. v. Lawlor
| Decision Date | 09 June 1904 |
| Docket Number | 538. |
| Citation | 130 F. 633 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | D. E. LOEWE & CO. v. LAWLOR et al. |
Davenport & Banks, for plaintiff.
Bristol Stoddard, Beach & Fisher, De Forest & Klein, and Howard W Taylor, for defendants.
It appears to be conceded that when suits are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, and demanding the same relief, in the state and federal courts, which have concurrent jurisdiction in the same territory, and the federal jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship a plea in abatement alleging the pendency of one will be futile as against the other, upon the authority of Gordon v. Guilfoil, 99 U.S. 168, 25 L.Ed. 383, and many cases in line therewith in the lower courts.
The point is made in argument upon the plea herein that when diversity of citizenship is absent the reason for the rule departs.
To maintain in the case at bar that the state and federal courts are 'in a sense' foreign to each other would require careful and conscientious study. The step from foreign relations to hostility is so easy to be taken, and the desire of the federal authority to promote and insure friendship and tranquillity by all honorable means is so great, that an unnecessary assertion of the inherent distinctions attaching to its source of power should be declared only in the last instance.
Fortunately, the case in hand does not, from the court's point of view, demand such exhaustive examination. In the Sherman act (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 3200)) the Congress has established a new method of obtaining redress in a matter relating to interstate trade, over which its jurisdiction is plenary. It has directed the parties to the Circuit Court for the vindication of their rights.
Before sustaining the defendants' plea, it is obviously necessary to accept their preliminary contention that the state court can, in the trial of the cause therein pending invoke section 7 of the antitrust act (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 210 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 3202)), and under its authority assess treble damages. It is not believed that such power exists in the state court. Congress was dealing with a delicate problem when it gave us the Sherman act, and it would seem to have been the thought that since a subject was up over which the federal jurisdiction was absolute it would be well to intrust...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Talking Pictures Corporation v. De Marce
...the federal courts alone. Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. Curtis Pub. Co., 252 U.S. 436, 40 S.Ct. 385, 64 L.Ed. 649; Loewe & Co. v. Lawlor, C.C., 130 F. 633; Venner v. New York Central Ry. Co., 94 Misc. 671, 158 N.Y.S. 602; Id., 177 App.Div. 296, 328, 164 N.Y.S. 626, affirmed Court ......
-
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. DeMarce
...617, 39 S.Ct. 391, 63 L.Ed. 803. The compelling reason, in view of the clear language of the act, is best expressed by the court in D.E. Loewe & Co. v. Lawlor "Congress was dealing with a delicate problem when it gave us the Sherman Act, and it would seem to have been the thought that since......
-
Caraway v. Ford Motor Company
...Co., 260 U.S. 261, 43 S.Ct. 106, 67 L.Ed. 244; Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., 319 U.S. 448, 63 S.Ct. 1146, 87 L.Ed. 1509; D. E. Loewe & Co. v. Lawler, C.C.Conn., 130 F. 633; United Artists Corp. v. Ancore Amusement Corp., D.C.N.Y., 91 F.Supp. 132; Leonia Amusement Corp. v. Loew's Inc., D.C.N.Y......
-
Lawlor v. Loewe
...costs and counsel fees. This controversy has been before the courts for nearly a decade. It first appears in the reports in (C.C.) 130 F. 633, where a demurrer to a in abatement was sustained. A motion to compel the plaintiffs to correct their complaint was denied in (C.C.) 142 F. 216. And ......