Dial v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 644,96 U.S. 340 |
| Parties | DIAL v. REYNOLDS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. J. M. Thornburgh for the appellant.
There was no opposing counsel.
The original bill was filed by Lyford, as trustee, and Staatsman. Reynolds demurred. Subsequently Lyford resigned his place as such trustee, and Dial was appointed in his stead, pursuant to a law of Tennessee. Dial and Staatsman filed an amended and supplemental bill. To this bill Reynolds also demurred. Dial and Staatsman filed another amended bill, and Reynolds again demurred. All the bills set forth substantially the same case. The facts alleged may be briefly stated. A deed of trust was executed by Cooper to Lyford, to secure certain liabilities of the grantor to Staatsman, and for other purposes. Reynolds asserted title in himself to the property covered by the deed. He claimed adversely to all the other parties. He had before sued another party for the premises. The case was brought to this court for final determination. It was decided against him. He thereafter commenced another action of ejectment in the proper State court, which was still pending. The bill seeks to foreclose the deed of trust, to quiet the title of the trustee, to remove the cloud cast upon it by Reynolds, and to enjoin him finally from further prosecuting his pending action of ejectment.
The Circuit Court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the bills. The complainants appealed to this court. The case was submitted here without oral argument. The counsel for the appellants has filed a brief. None has been filed upon the other side.
There are two objections to these bills:——
1. The gravamen of what is desired as to Reynolds is an injunction to prevent his proceeding at law in the State court. Without this, all else is of no account. Any other remedy would be unavailing. Such an injunction, except under the Bankrupt Act, no court of the United States can grant. With this exception, it is expressly forbidden by law. Act of March 2, 1793, sect. 5 (1 Stat. 334); Rev. Stat., sect. 720; Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; Peck et al. v. Jenness et al., 7 How. 612; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679.
2. It is well settled that in a foreclosure proceeding the complainant cannot make a person who claims adversely to both the mortgagor and mortgagee a party, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co
...they do not govern the cases at bar.7 Fourth. We come, then, to the so-called 'relitigation' cases, the first of which is Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340, 24 L.Ed. 644. The facts of the case are simple: Cooper was indebted to Staatsman. To secure these debts he executed a mortgage deed of tru......
-
McClanahan`s Adm`r v. Norfolk & W. R. Co.
...facts as a proper party. There is certainly very respectable authority to support the view that it cannot be so regarded. Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340, 24 L. Ed. 644; Banning v. Bradford, 21 Minn. 308, 18 Am. Rep. 398; Croghan v. Spence, 53 Cal. 15. But while passing this question, we may ......
-
Mitchum v. Foster 8212 27
...Co., 260 U.S. 226, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed.2d 226. 19 See, e.g., Toucey, supra, 314 U.S., at 137—141, 62 S.Ct., at 145—148; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340, 24 L.Ed. 644; Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 41 S.Ct. 338, 65 L.Ed. 673. See generally 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 230......
-
Ke-Sun Oil Co. v. Hamilton
...612, 625 12 L. Ed. 841; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719 20 L. Ed. 666; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254 23 L. Ed. 345; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340 24 L. Ed. 644; Sargent v. Helton, 115 U. S. 348, 6 S. Ct. 78 29 L. Ed. 412; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 220, 8 S. Ct. 482 31 L. Ed. 402;......