Diggs and Keith v. Wolcott
| Decision Date | 01 February 1807 |
| Citation | 2 L.Ed. 587,4 Cranch 179,8 U.S. 179 |
| Parties | DIGGS AND KEITH v. WOLCOTT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from a decree of the circuit court for the district of Connecticut, in a suit in chancery.
The appellants, Diggs and Keith, had commenced a suit at law against Alexander Wolcott, the appellee, in the county court for the county of Middlesex, in the state of Connecticut, upon two promissory notes given by Wolcott to one Richard Matthews, for the purchase of lands in Virginia, and by him indorsed to the appellants; whereupon Wolcott filed a bill in chancery in the superior court of the state, against the appellants Diggs and Keith, and also against Robert Young and Richard Matthews, praying that Diggs and Keith might be compelled to give up the two notes to be cancelled, or be perpetually enjoined from proceeding at law for the recovery thereof, &c.
This suit in chancery was removed by the appellants from the state court into the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut, where it was decreed that Diggs and Keith should, on or before a certain day, deliver the notes to the clerk of the court, and in default thereof should forfeit and pay to Wolcott 1,500 dollars; and that they should be perpetually enjoined, &c. and that Robert Young should repay to the appellee the amount of principal and interest which the latter had paid on account of the purchase of the lands; and that the appellee should deliver up to the clerk the surveys of the lands, and the bond of conveyance; and in default thereof should pay to R. Young the sum of 20,000 dollars.
The case was argued upon its merits by C. Lee and Swann for the appellants, and by P. B. Key for the appellee; But the Court being of opinion that a circuit court of the United States had not jurisdiction to enjoin proceedings in a state court,
Reversed the decree.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co
...of the specific prohibitory provisions of the Act of 1793. 5 The first case arising under the provision was Diggs & Keith v. Wolcott, 1807, 4 Cranch 179, 2 L.Ed. 587, where the appellants brought an action at law on various promissory notes in a state court. While this action was still pend......
-
Garamendi v. Executive Life Ins. Co.
...S.Ct. 1579, 1582, 12 L.Ed.2d 409, citing M'Kim v. Voorhies (1812) 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 279, 281, 3 L.Ed. 342 and Diggs v. Wolcott (1807) 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 179, 180, 2 L.Ed. 587.) However, an exception is made where one court or the other has custody of property, that is, where the proceedings......
-
Duke v. State of Texas
...provision preceded the initial judicial statement of the principle of comity by over a decade. See Diggs & Keith v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch 179, 8 U.S. 179, 2 L. Ed. 587 (1807). It is submitted, however, that this one inconspicuous clause of Section 5 of the two page Act of March 2, 1793, ch. 22,......
-
Clay Regional Water v. City of Spirit Lake, Iowa
...the two suits are for the same cause of action."); M'Kim v. Voorhies, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 279, 3 L.Ed. 342 (1812); Diggs v. Wolcott, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 179, 2 L.Ed. 587 (1807). That is so because federal courts have a "virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given the......