Latham v. Chafee

• Decision Date: 27 April 1881
• Citation: 7 F. 520
• Parties: LATHAM v. CHAFEE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

7 F. 520

LATHAM v. CHAFEE.

United States Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.

April 27, 1881

Andrew B. Patten, Jerome B. Kimball, Roger A. Prior, and Benj. F Butler, for complainant.

C Frank Parkhurst, Jas. Tillinghast, Benj. F. Thurston, and Chas. Hart, for defendant.

Defendant set up the following plea in bar of the bill:

'This defendant, by protestation, not confessing or acknowledging the matters and things in and by said bill set forth and alleged to be true in such manner and form as the same are thereby and therein set forth and alleged for plea to the hole of said bill, saith: That at the October term, A.D 1877, of the supreme court of the state of Rhode Island, held in and for the county of Providence, the Cranston Savings Bank, the People's Savings Bank, the City Savings Bank, the Union Savings Bank, each a corporation duly created by the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island, located and doing business in the city of Providence, in the county of Providence, and other parties, all creditors of the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company, and holders of its mortgage extension notes mentioned in said bill, as well in their own behalf as in behalf of all other creditors of the said corporation, the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company, in said complainant's said bill named, exhibited their bill of complaint in said supreme court against the said A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company, and the said William Sprague, Amasa Sprague, as copartners, doing business under the firm of A. & W. Sprague, and against this defendant, as trustee under said trust conveyance, dated November 3, 1873, and as trustee or assignee under said deed of assignment, bearing date April 6, 1874, from said A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company to this defendant, in said complainant's (Mary Anna Latham's) said present bill of complaint mentioned and referred to, praying that this defendant might be removed from his office as trustee under said conveyance, bearing date the first day of November, A.D. 1873, and that some suitable person or persons might be appointed trustee or trustees in his stead, and also praying that this defendant might be removed from his office as assignee under said conveyance, dated the sixth day of April, 1874, and that some suitable person or persons might be appointed assignee or assignees in his place and stead, and also praying that this defendant might be required to render an account of his doings as trustee and as assignee as aforesaid, and to make proper conveyances of the property and estate in his hands to the trustee or trustees, and the assignee or assignees to be appointed in his stead: and also praying that his agent and servants might be enjoined from interfering with, managing, or controlling the property and estate embraced in the conveyances aforesaid, in their bill of complaint set forth, and more especially from conducting the business of cotton spinning, calico printing, or other manufacturing business, except under the direction of said supreme court; and also praying such other and further relief in the premises as to said supreme court might seem meet. And this defendant, and all said other defendants named therein, were severally duly served with process issued from said supreme court upon said bill of complaint, so as aforesaid exhibited to them, and duly appeared and put in their joint and several answers thereto; and said complainants therein duly filed their replication to such answers; and said present complainant, Mary Anna Latham, as claiming to be a creditor of the said A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company as aforesaid, appeared and became a party to said former bill is, as this defendant avers, now depending and remaining as of record in said supreme court, being yet undetermined and undismissed. And this defendant avers that the said bill now exhibited by the said Mary Anna Latham against this defendant, is for the same matter as the said bill before exhibited by said Cranston Savings Bank and other complainants against this defendant, and others in said supreme court as aforesaid; and therefore this defendant doth plead the said former bill and answer in bar to the said complainant's present bill, and humbly prays the judgment of this honorable court whether he shall be put to make any other or further answer thereto, and prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.'

Before LOWELL and COLT, JJ.

COLT D.J.

The main question which arises upon the defendant's plea is whether the pendency of a suit in a state court between the same parties, and involving the same subject-matter, can be pleaded in abatement, or in bar, to a suit in the circuit court of the United States. It is undoubtedly true, as a general rule, that as between two courts of concurrent jurisdiction, that which first gets control of the litigation will be allowed to prosecute it to an end; and that consequently the pendency of another prior suit between the same parties, and involving the same subject-matter, may be pleaded in abatement of a subsequent suit in another court. But this rule does not extend to courts of foreign jurisdiction. It has been often held that the courts of a state are foreign, in this sense, to the courts of the United States.

In White v. Whitman, 1 Curt, 494, Curtis,...