Kessinger v. Vannatta

• Citation: 27 F. 890
• Parties: KESSINGER v. VANNATTA. DEIMER v. FRANZ.
• Decision Date: 01 January 1886
• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa

27 F. 890

KESSINGER v. VANNATTA.

DEIMER v. FRANZ.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Iowa.

June Term, 1886

D. C Cloud, for plaintiff.

H. J Lauder, for defendant.

LOVE J.

These cases are here by transfer from the circuit court of Iowa for Muscatine county. The plaintiffs move to remand. They are petitions in equity under the Iowa prohibition law. The purpose of the bill in 'ach of them is to enjoin the defendant from continuing the business of vending intoxicating liquors, and to declare the saloon in which the business is carried on, with its fixtures, furniture, etc., a nuisance, and to deal with it as such under the law. These cases have been removed to this court upon the ground that they involve a federal question which gives this court jurisdiction. The contention of the defendants is that if these proceedings shall prevail against them they will be deprived of their property, and certain other rights, without due process of law, in violation of the constitution of the United States.

I have considered these cases with great attention, and the conclusion which I have reached is that the motions to remand involve questions of difficulty and doubt as to the jurisdiction of this court. It is the constant practice of this court to remand causes brought here from the state courts in cases of doubtful jurisdiction. The reason of this practice is obvious and conclusive. In the first place, the jurisdiction of the state court is unquestionable. It is, at least, concurrent with this court. But the jurisdiction of this court depends upon special facts, and it is in the present case, to say the least, doubtful. It is the safer and wiser course to send a cause for trial to a court of unquestionable jurisdiction, rather than retain it here, and go through all the forms of trial, when the jurisdiction is doubtful.

Again if we sustain the motion to remand, exceptions can be taken at once to the order, and, because that order is a final adjudication here, a writ of error to the judgment of this court can be taken to the supreme court of the United States and disposed of in that court within a week or 10 days after the commencement of its next term. If, on the other hand, the order to remand is refused, and this is error, it can only be corrected in the supreme court after the delay and expense of a trial in this court, which would prove a most serious inconvenience to all parties.

There is...