Mandeville v. Canterbury
| Decision Date | 01 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 422,422 |
| Citation | 318 U.S. 47,87 L.Ed. 605,63 S.Ct. 472 |
| Parties | MANDEVILLE et al. v. CANTERBURY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Miss Corinne L. Rice, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.
Mr. Herbert R. Tews, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Respondent, said to be a citizen of California who claims an interest in a trust estate created under a will probated in Illinois, brought this suit in the District Court for Northern Illinois for construction of the will, joining as defendants the trustees and other interested parties, all alleged to be citizens of Illinois. The relief prayed is that the court, after construing the will, render a decree determining respondent's rights in the trust property and directing the trustee to account and to turn over to respondent his share in the trust property. Included in the trust property are tracts of land located in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois.
After respondent began the present suit, petitioners brought suit in a Minnesota state court against respondent and unknown heirs, devisees and legatees of decedent and unknown beneficiaries under the will, seeking a construction of so much of the will as relates to the Minnesota land, and an adjudication of their rights in the land. Shortly afterwards petitioners also brought suit in a Wisconsin state court against the same defendants, seeking like relief with respect to the Wisconsin land. On motion of respondent the district court granted a temporary injunction restraining the prosecution of the pending suits in Minnesota and Wisconsin. It also enjoined further prosecution of a probate proceeding brought by petitioner Richard Centerbury Mandeville in the County Court of Rock County, Wisconsin, which sought a construction of the will and a determination of the rights of the parties under it, but with the proviso that the injunction should not restrain the probate of the will or a determination of inheritance taxes due to the state. On appeal from the injunction order the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 130 F.2d 208, and we granted certiorari. 317 U.S. 616, 63 S.Ct. 158, 87 L.Ed. —-.
Section 265 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 379, 28 U.S.C.A. § 379, provides that except as authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy 'the writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State'. To this sweeping command there is a long recognized exception that if two suits pending, one in a state and the other in a federal court, are in rem or quasi in rem, so that the court or its officer must have possession or control of the property which is the subject matter of the suits in order to proceed with the cause and to grant the relief sought, the court first acquiring jurisdiction or assuming control of such property is entitled to maintain and exercise its jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.
In such cases this Court has uniformly held that a federal court may protect its jurisdiction thus acquired by restraining the parties from prosecuting a like suit in a state court notwithstanding the prohibition of § 265. This exception to the prohibition has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Leiter Minerals
... ... In fact, the decisions seem to be to the contrary. Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 66 S.Ct. 296, 90 L.Ed. 256; Mandeville v. Canterbury, 318 U.S. 47, 63 S.Ct. 472, 87 L.Ed. 605; Commonwealth Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Bradford, 297 U.S. 613, 56 S.Ct. 600, 80 L.Ed. 920 ... ...
-
Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Kelby
...and is, therefore, quasi in rem. Princess Lida v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 462, 465, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285; Mandeville v. Canterbury, 63 S.Ct. 472, 87 L.Ed. ___. The claim for restitution is part of the estate within the court's jurisdiction; the old trustee's liability is as much ......
-
Oil & Gas Ventures-First 1958 Fund, Ltd. v. Kung
...1940). 38 See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936). Cf. Mandeville v. Canterbury, 318 U.S. 47, 63 S.Ct. 472, 87 L. Ed. 605 (1943). 39 28 U.S.C. § 1404 provides: "Change of venue. (a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the inte......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parisien
...in rem cases or where specifically authorized by statute. See 314 U.S. at 139, 62 S.Ct. 139 ; see also Mandeville v. Canterbury , 318 U.S. 47, 49, 63 S.Ct. 472, 87 L.Ed. 605 (1943). However, Toucey was decided before the 1948 revisions to the Judicial Code, which amended the AIA to insert, ......
-
Forum shopping for arbitration decisions: federal courts' use of antisuit injunctions against state courts.
...may proceed with the litigation at least until judgment is obtained in one court, which may be set up as res judicata in the other. 318 U.S. 47, 49 (1943) (per (287) 398 U.S. 281 (1970). (288) Atlantic Coast Line involved picketing at the Moncrief switching yard near Jacksonville, Florida. ......