New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Matzinger
| Decision Date | 07 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | 27570. |
| Citation | 25 N.E.2d 349,136 Ohio St. 271 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEW YORK, C. & ST. L. R. CO. v. MATZINGER. |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A court of equity may restrain a person over whom it has jurisdiction from bringing or maintaining in a foreign state an action for the purpose or with the effect of unduly harassing or oppressing the defendant or securing to the plaintiff some unfair, unconscionable or inequitable advantage.
2. In exercising such authority, a court does not proceed upon the claim of right to control or stay proceedings in another state. The decree acts solely upon the party and is not an interference with the proceedings of the courts of a sister state and is not in contravention of any constitutional right.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Huron County.
This is a suit in injunction originating in Huron county wherein the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, as plaintiff, seeks to restrain the defendant, Lodema Matzinger who resides and for many years has resided in Bellevue, Huron county, Ohio, from proceeding in an action brought by her against that company in the Superior Court of Cook county Illinois, and now pending, in which she seeks to recover damages for an injury claimed to have been sustained by her while a passenger of that company and as a result of its negligence in the maintenance of the exit from its station in Rocky River, Cuyahoga county Ohio.
Issue was made by petition, answer and reply. Upon hearing, the Common Pleas Court denied the injunctive relief sought, but upon appeal to the Court of Appeals upon questions of law and fact, that court issued its decree enjoining Lodema Matzinger 'from in any manner assisting, aiding, participating, or engaging, directly or indirectly, in the prosecution or conduct of the cause of action then pending in the Superior Court of Cook county, Illinois, wherein said Lodema Matzinger is plaintiff and said The New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company is defendant, being General Number 37513807, List 1, in said court, or any other action or suit in any court in any state other than the state of Ohio against the said The New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, for damages by reason of injuries alleged to have been received by said Lodema Matzinger at Rocky River, Ohio, on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1937.'
The case is in this court by certification upon motion duly allowed.
William Wallace McCallum, of Chicago, Ill., and Carpenter & Freeman, of Norwalk, for appellant.
Williams, Eversman & Morgan, of Toledo, G. Ray Craig, of Norwalk, and Wm. H. Black, Jr., of Toledo, for appellee.
The question presented in this case is whether, under the facts before the court, an injunction should issue restraining the defendant from proceeding to trial with her case against the plaintiff, now pending in the Superior Court of Cook county, Illinois.
If the question of jurisdiction of that court were the only issue, that would, of course, be a question for its determination. However, the jurisdiction of that court is not challenged. On the contrary, it is conceded that it has jurisdiction of both the subject-matter and the parties.
It is well settled that a court of equity may restrain a person over whom it has jurisdiction from bringing or maintaining in a foreign state an action against another which will result in a fraud or gross wrong or oppression. This court recognized and approved the exercise of authority to stay or prevent proceedings in the courts of another state as early as 1874, in the case of Snook v. Snetzer, 25 Ohio St. 516, where it found an inequitable hardship was about to be imposed by one citizen of the state against another by the institution and maintenance of an action in another state. It adopted and followed the principle generally applied that in exercising such authority courts proceed not upon any claim of right to control or stay proceedings in another state or country, but upon the ground that the person on whom the restraining order is made resides within the jurisdiction and is within the power of the court issuing it. The order operates upon the person of the party and directs him to proceed no further in the action, and not upon the court of the foreign state or country in which the action is pending. The jurisdiction rests in the authority vested in courts of equity over persons within the limit of their jurisdiction to restrain them from doing inequitable acts to the wrong and injury of others, and on the power of the state to compel its own citizens to respect its laws even beyond its own territorial limits. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between an injunction against the proceedings of a court in another state and one to restrain the personal action of a citizen. The decree acts solely upon the party and is not an interference with the proceedings of the courts of a sister state and is not in contravention of any right given by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 14 Ruling Case Law, 413, Section 114; 32 Corpus Juris, 116, Section 137, and numerous cases there cited.
An examination of the many cases involving this question discloses that courts differ widely as to what constitutes a proper case for the exercise of such jurisdiction, there being a great divergence of opinion as to the facts and conditions justifying the issuance of an injunction. All seem to agree, however, that no general rule can be laid down as to when the court ought to enjoin a party from prosecuting a suit in a foreign jurisdiction, and that each case must be ruled by its own facts. It may be stated, however, that such restraining order is warranted when it is clearly shown that the institution of the suit in another state was for the purpose or has the effect of unduly harassing or oppressing the defendant or securing to the plaintiff some unfair, unconscionable or inequitable advantage.
The grounds upon which the action for injunction is based in this case and which are supported by evidence adduced upon the hearing are in substance as follows:
To maintain its defense, the company will have 16 or 17 witnesses, all of whom reside in Ohio within a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cirotto v. Am. Self Storage of Pickerington, LLC
... ... State ex rel. Dunbar v. Ham, 45 Ohio St.2d 112, 115, ... 341 N.E.2d 594 (1976), quoting The New York, Chicago, and ... St Louis RR. Co. v. Matzinger, 136 Ohio St. 271, 276, 25 ... N.E.2d 349 (1940) ... {¶24} ... Ohio's common ... ...
-
Issues Relating To Parallel Litigation
...Laker Airways Ltd. , 731 F.2d at 929; Gannon , 706 S.W.2d at 306-07; see Pfaff , 610 N.E.2d 51. 156 . N.Y., C. & S.L.R. Co. v. Matzinger, 25 N.E.2d 349, 350 (Ohio 1940); Christensen , 719 S.W.2d at 163. 157. Pfaff , 610 N.E.2d at 55; see also Buckley v. Buckley, 350 P.2d 44 (Kan. 1960). 158......