Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Sprague

• Decision Date: 27 February 1884
• Citation: 76 Me. 53
• Parties: EDWARDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, in equity, v. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, trustee, and others. ZACHERIAH CHAFEE, trustee, v. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, trustee, and others.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

76 Me. 53

EDWARDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, in equity, v. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, trustee, and others.

ZACHERIAH CHAFEE, trustee, v. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, trustee, and others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

February 27, 1884

ON EXCEPTIONS.

The opinion states the material facts.

Baker Baker and Cornish, for the plaintiffs, cited: Mahone v. R. R. 111 Mass. 74; Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S 187; Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457; Stone v Sargent, 129 Mass. 503; R. R. v. McAlister, 15 Rep. 761; Jackson v. Gould, 74 Me. 564; Carswell v. Schley, 59 Ga. 19; Commonwealth v Casey, 12 Allen 214; Morton v. Ins. Co. 105 Mass. 141; Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180; Sewing Machine Co. v. Grover & Baker Co. 110 Mass. 70; Galpin v. Critchlow, 112 Mass. 339; Gordon v. Green, 113 Mass. 259; Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 125; N. Y. Co. v. Loomis, 122 Mass. 431; Pechner v. Ins. Co. 65 N.Y. 195; Ex parte Wells, 3 Woods 131; McWhinney v. Brinker, 64 Ind. 360; Ins. Co. v. Green, 52 Miss. 332; Fashnacht v. Frank, 23 Wall. 416; Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U.S. 183; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450; Randall v. Howard, 2 Black 585; Nougue v. Clapp, 101 U.S. 554; Hines v. Rawson, 40 Ga. 356; S. C. 2 Am. R. 581; Sayer v. Gas Light Co. 14 F. 69; Ruggles v. Simonton, 3 Biss. 325; Fisk v. Un. Pac. R. R. 6 Blatch. 362; Rogers v. Rogers, 1 Paige Ch. 183; U. S. R. S., § 720; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U.S. 254; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340; The Slaughter House Case, 1 Woods 21; Moore v. Holliday, 4 Dill. 52; Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 F. 45; Wire Co. v. Wheeler, 11 F. 206; Missionary Co. v. Hinman, 13 F. 161; Diggs v. Walcott, 4 Cranch 179; R. R. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 287; Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 281; Perry v. Sharpe, 8 F. 23; Smith v. Schwed, 6 F. 455.

Edmund F. Webb and Appleton Webb, with whom was Benjamin F. Butler, for the defendants.

This is not an ancillary proceeding. It is a " suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity," which is removable as described in § 2. The right of removal attaches where suit was brought to obtain an injunction against a citizen of another State. Fisk v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. 53 Barb. 472; 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 453; Stewart v. Mordecai, 40 Ga. 1.

It lies where the object of the bill is to restrain the respondents. Taylor v. Rockfeller, 25 Pitts. L. I. 137; Upton v. New Jersey S. R. R. Co. 25 N.J.Eq. 372. In Stone v. Bishop, 4 Cliff. 593 (1878) jurisdiction was assumed, although one of the parties respondent was a citizen of the same state as the complainant, it appearing that the suit was auxiliary to the original suit commenced, and still pending between citizens of different states. This case, determined in this circuit, is exactly in point, and seems to be conclusive against the complainants' position that this is an ancillary suit and not removable, because the federal court would not have jurisdiction. Where a suit at law was brought in a state court, and while it was pending a suit in equity, relating to the same matter, was brought in the same court, and the defendant removed the suit into the federal court, it was held that the suit in equity was an original suit and was properly removable. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Star Ins. Co. 6 Blatchf. 208.

Where a citizen of one state filed a petition in a court of the state of which he was a citizen against a citizen of another state, to restrain the execution of a judgment obtained in the state court of the latter against the former, such cause was removable to the federal court, under the act of March 3, 1875, notwithstanding the fact that the federal courts were prohibited, bye § 720 of R. S. from granting an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court. Watson v. Bondurant, 2 Woods 166.

The fact that a suit is connected with and grows out of matters litigated in a state court, does not prevent the federal court from taking jurisdiction in case. Hatch v. Preston, 1 Biss. 19. A party brought into a state court by an order to inter-plead, may remove the cause. Postmaster-general v. Cross, 4 Wash. C. C. 326; Martin v. Taylor, 1 Wash. C. C. 1; Freeman v. Howe et al. 24 Howard, 450; only maintains that a suit of this kind is ancillary to the original suit, when the bill is filed on the equity side of the same court in which the suit at law is pending. This bill is in the Supreme Judicial Court, and the suit sought to be restrained is in the superior court of Kennebec county, another and different court. Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 286 is an authority in point. This was a bill like the present one, and it was claimed that it was merely auxiliary and incidental to the original cause, but the court said it had all the elements of a suit in equity. It sought relief which no court at law could grant; citations were issued and served upon the defendants; the controversy is the original cause--it was a suit, in which the complainant, (as in this case) sought to be protected from a judgment to which he was not a party.

The original suit in this matter is a suit at law in the superior court, Wm. Sprague, Trustee, v. The A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company. This bill in equity is in the name of the Edwards Manufacturing Company v. William Sprague et als. and contains new and grave questions not connected with the suit at law.

In the Albany Law Journal of July 21, 1883, page 54, is a case exactly like the one under consideration. The case was removed to the federal court and the plaintiff moved to remand it on the ground that the federal court had no jurisdiction, the proceedings being merely incidental and auxiliary to the original action in the state court, and so within the decision of Bank v. Turnball, 16 Wall. 190, and Barron v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80; but it was held that the bill instituted in the state court and removed to the federal court, was tantamount to a bill in equity to restrain the defendant from proceeding under an execution and amounted to a new case, and the court followed Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 281, and Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 83; where it is held that if the proceedings are tantamount to a bill in equity to set aside a decree for fraud then they constitute an original and independent proceeding, and according to the doctrine laid down in Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10, is cognizable in the federal court. And we respectfully maintain that this is not an ancillary suit but a new suit, with independent and distinct proposition, in a different court and in the names of new and different parties.

It is the duty of the state court by express command of the statute, the suit being removable, to accept the petition and bond and proceed no further. Railroad Company v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 136. By express language of the statute, when the defendant filed his petition, & c. in the case, it became the duty of the state court to accept the security and proceed no further in the cause. This act is mandatory upon the state court, and when the defendant complies with the act, the state court has no further jurisdiction to proceed in the cause. Stevens v. The Phœ nix Insurance Company, 41 N.Y. 154; Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters 97. And every step subsequently taken in the case is coram non judice. Ib. When the act of congress is complied with, the cause is removed and the state court has no jurisdiction thereafter to proceed further in the action. Mix v. Andes Insurance Company, 74 N.Y. 53.

SYMONDS J.

These bills in equity allege that there is pending in the superior court for the county of Kennebec an action at law in which Almyra Doyle and William Sprague as her trustee, two of these respondents, are plaintiffs, and Edmund F. Webb, the third respondent, is their attorney of record; that upon the writ in that action certain real estate was attached as the property of the defendants therein, the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company, a corporation chartered and organized under the laws of the State of Rhode Island; that the real estate so attached was in the possession of the complainants at the date of the attachment, and title to the same is claimed by them under deeds from the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company, preceding the attachment in date. The relief sought is that " the court will decree that neither said attachment nor any levy that may be made by virtue of any execution that may issue in said suit is or will be valid or effectual against your orators' said title and possession; and that your orators' said title and possession may be declared valid; and that said William Sprague, as trustee, and said Almyra Doyle and said Edmund F. Webb, their agents or assigns, may be enjoined both by a temporary and a perpetual injunction from levying any execution to be obtained in said suit upon said property claimed by your orators under the deeds aforesaid and from disputing the title or possession of your orators to the real estate herein before described." The bills state fully the grounds on which this relief is sought.

On the return day of the subpœ na, before any action had been taken by the court upon the question of issuing an injunction, petitions were filed by William Sprague, trustee, and by Edmund F. Webb, for the removal of the suits into the circuit court of the United States for this district, and the exceptions now presented for consideration are to the ruling of the court denying those petitions, " solely upon the ground that the right of removal, as asked for, does not exist in the present stage of the case." It is urged that under the act of Congress of March 3, 1875, the petitions should have been granted; that by force of the statute upon the filing of the proper petitions and bonds the jurisdiction of the state court ceased, and the suits were removed into the federal court.

The...