Dietzsch v. Huidekoper
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | WOODS |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 497,103 U.S. 494 |
| Parties | DIETZSCH v. HUIDEKOPER |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Edwin Walker for the appellants.
Mr. Henry Crawford, contra.
Page 495
MR. JUSTICE WOODS delivered the opinion of the court.
After the recovery of the judgment at law, on June 5, 1878, by Charles Kern, one of the appellants, in the Circuit Court for the County of Cook, in the action of replevin mentioned in Kern v. Huidekoper, supra, p. 485, notwithstanding the removal of the said cause to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, the writ of retorno habendo was issued thereon, which the plaintiffs in the replevin suit refused to obey. Thereupon, on June 7, 1878, an action of debt upon the replevin bond given by them was begun in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Frederick W. Huidekoper, Thomas W. Shannon, and John Dennison, the principals, and A. B. Meeker and John B. Drake, the sureties on said bond.
The action was brought in the name of Emil Dietzsch, the coroner, for the use of Charles Kern, the sheriff, who was nominally interested only, the real interest in the litigation being in the judgment and execution creditors, the Bank of North America and John McCaffrey.
Thereupon Huidekoper, Shannon, and Dennison, on June 10, 1878, filed the bill in this case in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against Dietzsch and Kern, in which they prayed an injunction to restrain them, their attorneys, agents, &c., and the execution creditors represented by them, from prosecuting any suit upon said replevin bond against the principals or sureties therein, 'or in any manner whatever taking any action to enforce any liability or right upon said pretended judgment of return entered in said Circuit Court of Cook County or upon the said replevin bond.'
On July 1, 1878, a preliminary injunction was allowed restraining the defendants below from in any manner prosecuting said action upon the replevin bond, or in any manner enforcing said judgment of return.
After the filing of this bill the action on the replevin bond in the State court was dismissed as to all the defendants except John B. Drake.
On Oct. 20, 1879, the complainants below filed their supplemental bill, in which they alleged that on Oct. 1, 1879, on
Page 496
motion of William J. Hynes, an order was entered in the Circuit Court for Cook County in the said suit, brought in the name of Emil Dietzsch on said replevin bond, against complainants and their sureties, by which the Bank of North America and John McCaffrey were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Star Pub. Co., No. 427.
...F. 113, 131, 132, 37 C. C. A. 410; Brun v. Mann, 151 F. 145, 149, 150, 80 C. C. A. 513, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 154; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494, 497, 26 L. Ed. 497; Swift v. Black Panther Oil & Gas Co., 244 F. 20, 22, 156 C. C. A. 448; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. McElvain (D. ......
-
Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co, IOWA-WISCONSIN
...'and proceed no further in the cause'. Section 265 has always been deemed inapplicable to removal proceedings. Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494, 26 L.Ed. 497; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 25 S.Ct. 251, 49 L.Ed. 462. The true rationale of these decis......
-
Rodgers v. Pitt, 658.
...would have the effect of defeating or impairing the jurisdiction of this court. French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250, 253; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494; Fisk v. Railroad Co., 10 Blatchf. 518, Fed. Cas. No. 4,830; Sharon v. Terry, 36 F. 337, 355; Frishman v. Insurance Cos., 41 F. 449; Railway......
-
Conover v. Montemuro, No. 71-1871.
...of 1789 and subsequent removal statutes by the issuance of injunctions running to the parties only. See, e. g., Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494, 497, 26 L.Ed. 497 (1880); French v. Hay, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 250, 22 L.Ed. 857 (1874). But the eventuality of contumacy in the removal situati......
-
Phelps v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 955.
...enforcing its own judgments in causes removed from the state court (French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250, 22 L.Ed. 857; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494, 26 L.Ed. 497). So it has been held that, when the requisite federal jurisdiction exists, a bill in equity will lie to deprive parties of the b......
-
Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co, IOWA-WISCONSIN
...'and proceed no further in the cause'. Section 265 has always been deemed inapplicable to removal proceedings. Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494, 26 L.Ed. 497; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 25 S.Ct. 251, 49 L.Ed. 462. The true rationale of these decis......
-
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Star Pub. Co., 427.
...F. 113, 131, 132, 37 C. C. A. 410; Brun v. Mann, 151 F. 145, 149, 150, 80 C. C. A. 513, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 154; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494, 497, 26 L. Ed. 497; Swift v. Black Panther Oil & Gas Co., 244 F. 20, 22, 156 C. C. A. 448; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. McElvain (D. ......
-
Rodgers v. Pitt, 658.
...would have the effect of defeating or impairing the jurisdiction of this court. French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250, 253; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494; Fisk v. Railroad Co., 10 Blatchf. 518, Fed. Cas. No. 4,830; Sharon v. Terry, 36 F. 337, 355; Frishman v. Insurance Cos., 41 F. 449; Railway......