Kim v. Voorhies
| Decision Date | 13 March 1812 |
| Citation | 3 L.Ed. 342,7 Cranch 279,11 U.S. 279 |
| Parties | M'KIM v. VOORHIES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Present. All the Judges.
THIS was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Kentucky, in which the opinions of the Judges were opposed.
At the July adjourned term of the Court below, in the year 1808, M'Kim, a citizen of Maryland, recovered a judgment in ejectment against Voorhies, a citizen of Kentucky, for the undivided third part of a water mill, with its appurtenances, in the county of Franklin, in the state of Kentucky. At the same time Voorhies filed his bill in Chancery in the Court below against M'Kim, and John Instone, a citizen of Kentucky, and Hayden Edwards, a citizen of South Carolina, claiming an equitable lien on the said third part of the mill, &c. on account of contracts, &c. between Bennett Pemberton (under whom Voorhies held the premises) and Hayden Edwards and John Instone; Pemberton having sold the said third part of the mill, &c. to Edwards, who sold to Instone, who sold and conveyed to M'Kim. Instone was the only Defendant served with process from the Court below. M'Kim and Instone answered the bill, and brought on a motion to dissolve the injunction on the merits, which was overruled by the Court below. At the term next preceding November term, 1810, (Edwards not having answered) the Court below dismissed the suit as to him; and as to Instone, for want of jurisdiction; after which Voorhies had leave to discontinue as to M'Kim on payment of costs. The suit was accordingly discontinued. Previous to this disposition of the cause, Voorhies filed his bill in Chancery against the same parties in the State Circuit Court for the county of Franklin, in the state of Kentucky, in which he set up the same equity as he charged in his bill in the Court below. On this bill he, by an order from one of the Circuit Judges of the State, obtained an injunction, staying all further proceedings on the said judgment in ejectment, until the matters of the said bill were heard in equity. This injunction was dissolved at the July term of the Franklin Circuit Court; shortly after which the said injunction was reinstated by the order of the honorable Caleb Wallace, one of the judges of the Court of Appeals of the state of Kentucky, issued under the act of the general assembly of that state, passed at their December session in the year 1807.
The injunction issued in the cause by the State Court, and the order reinstating that injunction, were duly notified to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garamendi v. Executive Life Ins. Co.
...other's proceedings. (Donovan v. Dallas (1964) 377 U.S. 408, 412, 84 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......
-
Clay Regional Water v. City of Spirit Lake, Iowa
...suit in another jurisdiction is not a bar ... even though 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 unflag......
-
Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia Ins. Co.
... ... subject matter and power to adjudicate the questions covered ... by its decrees ... Griffith ... v. Vicksburg Water Works Co., 40 So. 1011; G. M. & N. R ... R. Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 90 So. 358; McKim v ... Voorhies, 7 Cranch 279; Riggs v. Johnson ... County, 6 Wall. 166; Mayor v. Lord, 9 Wall ... 409; Amy v. Supervisors, [161 Miss. 418] 11 Wall ... 136; Duncan v. Darst, 1 How. U.S. 301; ... Supervisors v. Durant, 9 Wall. 415; Moran v ... Sturges, 154 U.S. Opin. at 267, et seq.; Peck v ... Jenness, 7 ... ...
-
Donovan v. City of Dallas
...in circumstances such as those involved here. None of them was concerned with vaxatious litigation. The issue in McKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch 279, 3 L.Ed. 342 (ante, p. 412, note 9), was whether a state court could stay pro- ceedings on a federal court's judgment which had already been rende......