Coram v. Davis
| Decision Date | 26 May 1909 |
| Docket Number | 562. |
| Citation | 174 F. 664 |
| Parties | CORAM v. DAVIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Adler & Wood, for complainant.
E. N Harwood, Hollis R. Bailey, Brandeis, Dunbar & Nutter, Edward F. McClennen, William L. Snyder, Horace G. Allen, William T Read, Jesse B. Roote, D. E. Webster, and Morse & Friedman for defendants.
On hearing the motion to dismiss this bill the conclusion the court arrives at is inevitable, as the result of the practice established by the Supreme Court. It is thoroughly settled by several decisions of that court that we can take notice of the mandate of the Supreme Court in Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U.S. 335, 29 Sup.Ct. 92, 53 L.Ed. 208, which is already on file in this court, and has been incorporated in the decree in that case, and not only that we may take notice of it, but that under the present circumstances we should do so.
From the time that mandate was received this court was powerless to proceed in any way which would in any manner qualify or obstruct the judgment entered in accordance with that mandate. This is now thoroughly settled law.
The mandate grew out of a bill in equity to which the Ingersoll estate and Mr. Coram were parties. It involved all the equitable relations between them involved in the bill now before us.
The present bill, whatever else may be the facts in reference to it, undertakes to qualify those relations, and, in a certain sense, asks the court to establish a lien in favor of Mr. Coram superior to the lien in favor of the estate of Mr. Ingersoll. It also asks us to enjoin and delay proceedings under the mandate. All those things are absolutely and utterly beyond the power of this court to do.
Counsel for the complainant offers to amend by striking out everything relating to the Ingersoll estate; but that topic is so far interlaced into the bill that, in the judgment of the court, such an amendment, cannot be satisfactorily accomplished. If the complainant has any equities which can be litigated between him and the parties to this bill aside from the Ingersoll estate, he must file a clean new bill in reference thereto; but in that bill he must be careful not to ask any remedy which will obstruct, delay, or even embarrass this court in proceeding under the mandate of the Supreme Court.
This bill, having been first filed in this court, is not on its face a contempt of the jurisdiction of this court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Scott
...former court, where omission to take such notice would qualify or obstruct the judgment entered in accordance with the mandate. [Coram v. Davis, 174 F. 664.] Also, the judge of federal court may, in order to determine his power to grant relief in regard to certain property, take judicial no......
-
Morse v. Lewis
...Co. v. Mobile, 186 U. S. 212, 22 S. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 1132; Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U. S. 335, 29 S. Ct. 92, 53 L. Ed. 208; Coram v. Davis (C. C.) 174 F. 664; Freshman v. Atkins, 269 U. S. 121, 46 S. Ct. 41, 70 L. Ed. 193; Butler v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 240, 243, 11 S. Ct. 985, 35 L. Ed. 713; ......
-
Bell & Howell Co. v. Bliss
...interfere with the orderly proceedings of the state court. Such action on his part is little less than contempt of that court. Coram v. Davis (C.C.) 174 F. 664; Lord Veazie, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 251, 12 L.Ed. 1067. That this court should not lend itself to such a purpose, or its aid to such a r......