American Surety Co. of New York v. Baldwin

Decision Date31 July 1931
Docket NumberNo. 1626.,1626.
Citation51 F.2d 596
PartiesAMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK v. BALDWIN et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Idaho

Richards & Haga, McKeen F. Morrow, Martin & Martin, and Frank Martin, all of Boise, Idaho, for plaintiff.

James F. Ailshie, Jr., and J. R. Smead, both of Boise, Idaho, for defendants.

CAVANAH, District Judge.

This is a bill for an injunction against the defendants and the sheriff of Ada county, Idaho, enjoining them from enforcing a judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff the American Surety Company, rendered by the state district court. The case is before the court upon the pleadings and showing on motion for a temporary injunction which relates to a history of the proceedings surrounding the steps taken by the parties from the inception of the suit out of which the judgment arose to the time of the institution of this action. The particular proceeding in which the judgment was rendered was by motion for judgment on a supersedeas bond executed by the plaintiff under section 7155, Idaho Compiled Statutes, and which judgment the plaintiff asserts is unconscionable, inequitable and void, and deprives it of its property without due process of law and denies it the equal protection of the law.

A federal court of equity is now asked to review those proceedings and by injunction stay further proceedings in the enforcement of the judgment. It presents the single question as to what extent does the power of the federal court extend when invoking its jurisdiction over proceedings had or pending in a state court, for the recognized principle will be kept in mind that if a state court has first assumed jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the cause and the parties by reason of an action pending there, or that the matters in controversy have been determined by the state court having jurisdiction of it and the parties, a federal court has no jurisdiction under the rule of comity of courts of concurrent jurisdiction to interfere with the jurisdiction of the court, or to review the merits of a controversy or annul the decrees of a court which had first obtained jurisdiction. Bearing then in mind this principle, with the further thought that the federal courts accept as controlling the decisions of the highest court of the state when interpreting the statutes of the state, we are confronted with the inquiry here: Do the facts alleged in the bill and presented on the showing bring the present case under the principles thus stated?

It appears that in May, 1928, the defendant commenced an action in the state district court against Ed. Anderson and the Singer Sewing Machine Company to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by Vivian F. Baldwin, and received a judgment against both Anderson and the sewing machine company in the sum of $19,500. An appeal was then taken to the Supreme Court of the state, and the supersedeas bond for $25,000 was given by the sewing machine company in accordance with section 7155 of the state statutes. Thereafter, in April, 1930, the Supreme Court of the state rendered its decision in the cause, and its remittitur went down to the trial court reciting that the judgment was reversed as to the Singer Sewing Machine Company and affirmed as to Anderson. The trial court then dismissed the cause as to the sewing machine company, and after the expiration of thirty days from the time the remittitur was filed the Baldwins by their attorneys moved in court, under section 7155, for the entry of a judgment against the plaintiff bonding company upon the supersedeas bond, which was done by the court on June 23, 1930. Three days thereafter, the plaintiff moved the trial court to vacate the judgment which was granted on August 12, 1930. An appeal was then taken from the order vacating the judgment by the defendants to the state Supreme Court, who in its decision reversed the order vacating the order and said:

"Many assignments of error are made, but so far as this appeal is concerned we deem it necessary to consider only those which challenge the ruling of the lower court to the effect that the judgment against the surety company on the undertaking was void. * * *

"We disclaim any intention or right to construe the legal effect of the undertaking in question further than to examine it in aid of determining the sole question of the court's jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion for judgment thereon.

"The surety company did not claim error, and appeal. It did not claim inadvertence or mistake. It challenged the court's jurisdiction and moved to set aside the judgment as void. The whole question here is a question of jurisdiction. Nothing further. Nothing else.

"If a court has jurisdiction of the parties, jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and jurisdiction of an issue of law or fact presented, then its judgment upon that issue is not void whether erroneous or not. Such judgment in the absence of mistake or, in a proper case, motion for new trial, may be corrected only by appeal. * * *

"Regarding notice: Where a supersedeas undertaking for stay of execution is filed pursuant to C. S. § 7155, it is held the surety becomes a party to the action, and if the judgment stayed by the undertaking is affirmed in whole or in part and remains unsatisfied for thirty days, the judgment creditor may move in the action for judgment on the undertaking against the surety, and it is unnecessary to give the surety company notice of such motion. * * *

"In the case at bar the only question presented to the court was as to right to judgment on the bond which was presented to the court by appellants in the manner provided by statute for the submission of that issue. This challenged judicial inquiry.

"The question or issue presented was: Did the surety company, in its undertaking, become a party liable for every part of the judgment appealed from which might be affirmed by the Supreme Court, or did it stipulate only as to such judgment or part thereof as might be affirmed against the Singer Sewing Machine Company? To answer this question the court must look to the bond. The issue required a construction of the bond as a whole. The trial court had jurisdiction of this question. It construed the bond...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Baldwin v. Anderson, 5783
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 12 Julio 1932
    ......BALDWIN and E. R. BALDWIN, Respondents, v. ED. ANDERSON, Respondent, and AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Surety, Appellant No. 5783 Supreme Court of Idaho July ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT