Coeur D'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding

• Decision Date: 09 May 1898
• Parties: COEUR D'ALENE RAILWAY AND NAVIGATION COMPANY v. SPALDING
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

53 P. 107

6 Idaho 97

COEUR D'ALENE RAILWAY AND NAVIGATION COMPANY v. SPALDING

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 9, 1898

JURISDICTION-TRANSFER OF CAUSE TO UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT-CIRCUIT COURT REMANDS TO STATE COURT-EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO QUESTION JURISDICTION.-The circuit court of the United States, to which a cause has been transferred or removed from a state court, is the sole judge as to whether the cause was properly removed or not, and its order remanding the case back to the state court is binding upon the parties, and should be respected by the state courts. After the lapse of more than six years from the making of an order by the United States circuit court, to which a cause had been removed from a state court, remanding said cause back to the state court, and after an appeal from said judgment by the defendant on a record absolutely silent as to any question of jurisdiction on the part of the state courts, the said judgment was affirmed by the state supreme court, after which said defendant filed a petition for a writ of review, on the ground that the state courts had no jurisdiction. Held, that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the state courts, and the writ demanded should be denied.

(Syllabus by the court.)

An original proceeding by petition for writ of review.

Writ denied, with costs.

John T Morgan, William T. Stoll, and Stephens, Bunn & McDonald, for Petitioner.

The making and filing of the "written request" by the petitioner in the district court of the state invested the circuit court of the United States, eo instanti, with exclusive jurisdiction of the case and devested the state court of any pretended jurisdiction that it had. (Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Min. Co., 158 U.S 41, 15 S.Ct. 751; Carr v. Fife, 156 U.S. 494, 15 S.Ct. 427; Ames v. Colorado Cent. R. R. Co., 4 Dill 251, Fed. Cas. No. 324; New Orelans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 90; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 287; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160; Express Co. v Kountze, 8 Wall. 342, 350, 351; Baker v. Morton, 12 Wall. 150, 153; Dorne v. Richmond Co., 1 S. Dak. 20, 44 N.W. 1021; Herman v. McKinney, 43 F. 689; Miller v. Sunde, 1 N. Dak. 1, 44 N.W. 301; Blackburn v. Wooding, 56 F. 545, 15 U. S. App. 84; Washington etc. R. R. Co. v. Coeur d'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co., 160 U.S. 77, 16 S.Ct. 231.) There is authority to the effect that a stipulation of the parties to remand, coupled with an order of the court, does not devest the circuit court of jurisdiction or invest the state court with power to take the first step. (Lawton v. Blitch, 30 F. 641.) The judgment pretended to be rendered by the district court on the 25th of April, 1896, is void for want of jurisdiction. (1 Black on Judgments, secs. 170, 218; Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440, 54 Am. Dec. 351; Central Bank v. Gibson, 11 Ga. 453; Johnson v. Johnson, 30 Ill. 215; Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Scam. 364, 39 Am. Dec. 418; Miller v. Snyder, 6 Ind. 1; Seeley v. Reid, 3 Greene (Iowa), 374; Elliott v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328.) Two courts cannot have jurisdiction of the same case. (Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 14; Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 122, 1 S.Ct. 58; Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135; Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485; Insurance Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214.) The uniform holding of the supreme court of the United States is to the effect that a state court proceeding with a cause, and attempting to exercise jurisdiction after the filing of the petition and bond, where the bond is required, is acting without authority, and its action is absolutely void. (National Bank v. Colby, 21 Wall. 609; 3 Myers' Fed. Dec. 261, 265, 344; Harvey v. Allen, 16 Blatchf. 29-47, Fed. Cas. No. 6177.)

Willis Sweet, for Defendant.

No brief filed.

QUARLES, J. Sullivan, C. J., and Huston, J., concur.

OPINION

QUARLES, J.

The plaintiff filed its petition for a writ of review. This court made an order that defendants show cause, at the regular term of this court held at Lewiston on the eighteenth day of April, 1898, why a writ of review should not issue. To said petition and order to show cause the defendants filed their response. The petitioner alleges: That it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the territory (now state) of Montana, and doing business in Idaho. That on the twenty-fourth day of March, 1887, the respondent, Spalding, as plaintiff, commenced an action in the district court of the first judicial district of the territory (now state) of Idaho in and for Kootenai county against the petitioner, as defendant, to recover upon a building contract a sum greater than $ 2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, in which action summons was issued and served; and that the petitioner here, as such defendant, filed its answer denying the allegations of said plaintiff's complaint in all respects. That after the admission of the state of Idaho into the Union by the act of Congress approved July 3, 1890, and while said action was so pending and undetermined in the said district court, to wit, on September 2, 1890, the petitioner, under the provisions of section 18 of the said admission act, made and filed in said court a written request to transfer the said action from the said district court of Idaho territory to the United States circuit court for the district of Idaho on the ground that the plaintiff in said action, the said Spalding, was a citizen of Idaho and the said petitioner, defendant therein, was then a citizen of the state of Montana. That thereupon the judge of the said district court of Idaho made, on said last-named day, an order transferring the said cause from the said district court of the state of Idaho to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Idaho. That on the thirteenth day of November, 1895, the district court of the first judicial district of Idaho in and for Kootenai county, over the objection and against the protest of the said petitioner, unlawfully assumed jurisdiction of said cause, and then and there proceeded, over the objection of the petitioner, to try and determine the same, and did, on the twenty-fifth day of April, 1896, unlawfully enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs therein, and against the petitioner, for the sum of $ 34,727.90 and costs, taxed at $ 1,857.05. That said district court, in trying and determining said cause, exceeded its jurisdiction, and that said judgment is void, and that the plaintiff has no speedy or adequate remedy to correct such unlawful assumption of jurisdiction by the said district court of the said state of Idaho. That said pretended judgment has been assigned by the respondent Spalding to the respondent Sweet, who now claims to own the same. The answer filed by the respondents alleges the following facts: That the order made transferring said action from the said district court of Idaho to the United States circuit court was made by the consent of all of the parties to said action, and on the written request of the petitioner. That pursuant to the order transferring said cause to the said circuit court, all of the files, records and papers of said cause were, by the clerk of said state court, transferred to the United States circuit court for the district of Idaho. That thereafter, and on Wednesday, July 1, 1891, the said circuit court of the United States for the district of Idaho on its own motion, remanded said cause back to the district court of the first judicial district of the state of Idaho in and for said Kootenai county, and thereafter all of the files, documents, and records in said cause were returned by the clerk of the said United States circuit court to the said district court. That no motion was made in said state district court with reference to the jurisdiction of said court, and no order made by said state district court in said action with reference to its jurisdiction therein, as is shown by the records of said district court. That said cause was continued from time to time, and from year to year, until the thirteenth day of November, 1895, when said cause was heard in said state court, which afterward, and on April 25, 1896, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. That after the rendition of said judgment, the petitioner here moved for a new trial in said state district court, which motion was duly presented and considered, and by said court overruled. That the petitioner here thereupon appealed to the supreme court of the state of Idaho from the order of the state district court denying petitioner's motion for a new trial, and that on said appeal the petitioner filed in said supreme court a transcript and the complete record upon which said...