Gregory v. Van Ee

• Decision Date: 27 January 1896
• Docket Number: No. 601,601
• Citation: Gregory v. Van Ee, 160 U.S. 643, 16 S.Ct. 431, 40 L.Ed. 566 (1896)
• Parties: GREGORY v. VAN EE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

160 U.S. 643

16 S.Ct. 431

40 L.Ed. 566

GREGORY

v VAN EE.

No. 601.

January 27, 1896.

[Syllabus from pages 643-645 intentionally omitted]F. A. Brooks and E. J. Phelps, for appellant.

Russell Gray, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The jurisdiction of the circuit court in the suit of Gregory against Pike and Swift rested on the fact that the controversy therein was between citizens of different states, and this was the sole ground on which Gregory removed the cause from the state court to the circuit court.The fund was in the circuit court because realized out of and substituted for the subject of contention in that suit, and Van Ee recovered on his intervening petition what he claimed to be his share of that fund.

In Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47, 15 Sup. Ct. 266, we held that if the decree of a circuit court of appeals is final, under the sixth section of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, a decree upon an intervention in the same suit must be regarded as equally so, because the intervention is entertained in virtue of jurisdiction in the circuit court already subsisting.It was pointed out that, where property is in the actual possession of the circuit court, this draws to it the right to decide upon conflicting claims for its ultimate possession and control, and that where assets are in the course of administration all persons entitled to participate may come in, under the jurisdiction acquired between the original parties, by ancillary or supplemental proceedings, even though jurisdiction in the circuit court would be lacking if such proceedings had been independently prosecuted; that the...