Luikart v. FARMERS'LUMBER CO.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1930
• Docket Number: No. 132.,132.
• Citation: 38 F.2d 588
• Parties: LUIKART v. FARMERS' LUMBER CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

38 F.2d 588 (1930)

LUIKART v. FARMERS' LUMBER CO.

No. 132.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

January 21, 1930.

A. C. Allen and O. N. Gibson, both of Riverton, Wyo., for appellant.

E. E. Enterline and Madge Enterline, both of Casper, Wyo., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, COTTERAL, and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.

McDERMOTT, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining a motion to dismiss an amended bill of complaint, the object of which is to annul and vacate a judgment of the state court of Wyoming. In the amended bill it is alleged that:

Appellant was sued in the state courts of Wyoming upon a conditional stock subscription. His defense was a breach of the condition. He expected to maintain that defense by the testimony of one Jesse E. Keith, who had told appellant's counsel, before trial, that the condition had been breached. At the trial, Keith testified otherwise, to the surprise, consternation and prejudice of appellant. A judgment for the amount of the subscription followed. Such evidence of Keith was the result of conspiracy, subterfuge, trickery and perjury, and that appellant now has other evidence to prove the breach of condition. In the state court, a motion for new trial was filed, setting up substantially the above facts concerning the alleged duplicity of Keith, the surprise, and newly discovered evidence. Such motion was overruled. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, which affirmed the judgment, and denied a rehearing. Farmers' Lumber Co. v. Luikart, 36 Wyo. 413, 256 P. 84; and on rehearing, 37 Wyo. 201, 259 P. 1053.

The courts of the United States have no general supervisory or appellate powers over the state courts. Stripped of the conclusions of the pleader, it is apparent that the object of this action is to review and reverse the decision of the state court. The appellant brought to the consideration of the state court his claims as to the perjury of Keith, his surprise, and his newly discovered evidence. The state trial court ruled on it, and the state Supreme Court affirmed it. The appellant's day in court is ended.

Nice questions are sometimes presented as to what is extrinsic or intrinsic fraud, and as to what facts justify one court in enjoining the judgment of another court. Exploration of the limits of the rule should be left for some case which approaches the limits. Judge Walter H. Sanborn states the philosophy of the rule in his characteristic, clear language in Horton v. Stegmyer (8 C. C. A.) 175 F. 756, 758, 20 Ann. Cas. 1134 (Van Devanter and Munger concurring) as follows:

"A federal court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to disregard or to enjoin the enforcement of an unconscionable judgment of a state or of a national court for new causes, such as fraud, accident, or mistake, which deceive the court into a wrong decree, or which prevent the judgment defendant from availing himself of a meritorious defense that was not fairly presented to the court which rendered the judgment. But it has no power to take such action on account of errors or irregularities in the proceedings on which the judgment or decree is founded, or on account of erroneous or illegal decisions by the court which rendered the judgment or decree. The reason of this rule is that cases of the former class present new controversies, which have never been raised in other courts, while cases of the latter class invoke a jurisdiction which does not exist, a jurisdiction in a federal court to review and revise the acts and decisions of courts of coordinate jurisdiction upon on questions which they have lawfully considered and adjudged."

The following quotation from the leading case of United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, 65, 25 L. Ed. 93, covers this case:

"If the court has been mistaken in the law, there is a remedy by writ of error. If the jury has been mistaken in the facts, the remedy is by ...