Dietzsch v. Huidekoper

Citation26 L.Ed. 497,103 U.S. 494
PartiesDIETZSCH v. HUIDEKOPER
Decision Date01 October 1880
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

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.

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 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 substituted for Dietzsch as parties plaintiff in said action, and an amended declaration was filed by them as such plaintiffs, and a rule was entered against Drake requiring him to plead to such amended declaration within twenty days.

The supplemental bill charged that the Bank of North America and John McCaffrey, and Edwin Walker, their attorney, had personal knowledge of the allowance and issue of said injunction, and that the judgment in favor of the Bank of North America was the property of Walker, and that the proceedings in said action of debt were in violation of the injunction of the court and taken for the purpose of evading its orders, and prayed that the Bank of North America, McCaffrey, Walker, and Hynes might be made parties defendant to the bill, and that the injunction allowed upon the original bill might be so enlarged as to include the said new defendants.

Thereupon the Bank of North America, McCaffrey, Walker, and Hynes appeared and filed their demurrer to the original and supplemental bills, alleging as grounds of demurrer that the court had no jurisdiction to enjoin proceedings in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, as prayed for in said original and supplemental bills.

The demurrer was overruled. The defendants who...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • Phelps v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 3, 1901
    ... ... 113), nor from 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 ... ...
  • Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1941
    ...and bond '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 th......
  • Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Star Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • October 20, 1924
    ...96 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 (......
  • Rodgers v. Pitt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • September 18, 1899
    ... ... 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; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • January 1, 2014
    ...for “expressly authorized” exception). 141. See Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977). 142. See Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494 (1881). 143. See Providence & N.Y.S.S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578 (1883). 144. See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940). 396 Business......

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