President, etc., of Bowdoin College v. Merritt
| Decision Date | 27 November 1893 |
| Docket Number | 11,565. |
| Citation | 59 F. 6 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | PRESIDENT, etc., OF BOWDOIN COLLEGE et al. v. MERRITT et al. |
Blake Williams & Harrison and Pillsbury & Hayne, for complainants.
Horace W. Philbrook and Arthur Rodgers, for respondent James P Merritt.
The facts of this case have become familiar. It will only be necessary, therefore, to say, in general, it is brought by the college and certain persons as beneficiaries of a trust deed made by one Catherine Garcelon to the defendants Stanley and Purington. They sue for themselves and all others interested under the deed. The suit is to enjoin the defendant J. P. Merritt from asserting claim to the property described in the deed, contrary to his contract, as heir of Dr. Merritt, from whom Mrs. Garcelon derived the property and thereby embarrass or prevent the execution of the trust and the action is, as Judge Hawley said, to quiet the title. The right of complainants to sue was decided by Judge Hawley, sitting as circuit judge, and has become the law of the case, precluding further discussion on the pleadings. 54 F. 55.
Harry P. Merritt, against whom the present proceeding is described, is a beneficiary under the trust deed aforesaid, $10,000 being directed thereby to be given to him. He was also made one of the executors of Mrs. Garcelon's will, and one of the residuary legatees thereof. The supplemental bill alleges that he was made legatee, not to give him standing to attack the trust in favor of complainants, but to protect and preserve it; that he knew of this purpose, and induced Mrs. Garcelon to believe that he would execute it; that he made complainants believe that he would execute it, and at the time of the commencement of this suit was friendly to, and co-operated in, its purpose; and that on the 12th day of March, 1892, he filed, with other beneficiaries, a petition of intervention in said suit, to be made a party plaintiff thereto, in which petition he affirmed the truth of the allegations of the bill of complainants. This petition is still pending. Afterwards, it is alleged, he conspired with James P. Merritt and others to defeat the said trust, resigned his position of executor, and it was agreed between him and said James P. Merritt and others that James P. should contest the will, and if he should fail he would, as residuary legatee, attack the trust deed on the ground of mental incapacity of Mrs. Garcelon to make the same; that James P. Merritt prosecuted a contest against said will in the superior court of Alameda county, which was defeated; and that Harry P. Merritt, in execution of the conspiracy with James P. Merritt and others, has commenced a suit in the superior court of Alameda county against the trustees of said trust deed, and he has petitioned the court for the appointment of a receiver of the property described therein. The complainants were originally made defendants in said suit, but were dismissed on motion of said Harry P. Merritt.
The object of the supplemental bill is to make Harry P. Merritt a party defendant in this action, and enjoin him from the further prosecution of said suit in the state court. But it is urged by his counsel that his cause of action is independent of that of the other Merritt, though it may require the decision of the same questions, and that an injunction restraining him is prohibited by section 720 of the Revised Statutes. It is as follows: 'The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.' In Sharon v Terry, 36 F. 365, this section was held by Judges Field, Sawyer, and Sabin not to apply, where the federal court has first obtained jurisdiction. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court, said, 'In such cases the federal court may restrain all proceedings in a state court which would have the effect of defeating or impairing its jurisdiction.' In support of this the learned justice cited Fisk v. Railroad Co., 10 Blatchf. 520; Wagner v. Drake, 31 F. 851; French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494. The suit of complainants in this court was prior in time to Merritt's suit in the state court; and it is very clear, if he should succeed in having a receiver appointed of the property, the jurisdiction of this court would be very much embarrassed, if not defeated or impaired. If, therefore, this court had jurisdiction of said Merritt at the time he commenced his suit, it can and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
President, etc., of Bowdoin College v. Merritt
...that have been heretofore expressed, and the principles of law that have been discussed and decided by this court in this case (54 F. 55; 59 F. 6; 63 F. 213), will not considered, commented upon, or reviewed. The case will now be considered upon its merits. The main question for decision, u......
-
Rodgers v. Pitt
... ... etc. On March 7, 1893, the defendants Pitt and Hauskins filed ... Culberson, ... 56 F. 329, 333; President, etc., v. Merritt, 59 F ... 6; Wadley v. Blount, 65 F ... ...
-
Trimble v. Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf R. Co.
... ... R. A. 572; ... Jessup v. Railroad, 44 F. 663; President, etc., ... v. Merritt, 59 F. 6; Foley v. Hartley, 72 F ... ...
-
United States v. Thompson, 2451.
...and may not raise questions of irregularity of procedure. Montgomery v. Sioux City Seed Co., supra; McKay v. Rogers, supra; Bowdoin College v. Merritt, C.C., 59 F. 6; Rice v. Durham Water Co., C.C., 91 F. 433; Atlantic Refining Co. v. Port Lobos Petroleum Corp., D.C.Del., 280 F. 934; Mars v......