Princess Lida of Thurn and Taxis v. Thompson, No. 118

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtROBERTS
Citation83 L.Ed. 285,305 U.S. 456,59 S.Ct. 275
PartiesPRINCESS LIDA OF THURN AND TAXIS et al. v. THOMPSON et al
Docket NumberNo. 118
Decision Date03 January 1939

305 U.S. 456
59 S.Ct. 275
83 L.Ed. 285
PRINCESS LIDA OF THURN AND TAXIS et al.

v.

THOMPSON et al.

No. 118.
Argued Nov. 17, 18, 1938.
Decided Jan. 3, 1939.

Page 457

Mr. Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City, for petitioners.

Messrs. Dean D. Sturgis and W. Brown Higbee, both of Uniontown, Pa., for respondents.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether the exercise of jurisdiction by a state court over the administration of a trust deprives a federal court of jurisdiction of a later suit involving the same subject matter.

December 6, 1906, Gerald P. Fitzgerald, a citizen of Ireland, and his wife Lida, entered into an agreement with each other and with Josiah V. Thompson, Charles E. Lenhart, and Fitzgerald, as trustees, which recited the marriage of the two first named, that they had three sons, and that, on December 5, 1906, Lida had obtained a decree of divorce in Ireland. The agreement provided

Page 458

for payments of alimony by Gerald to Lida pending an absolute divorce (which was eventually granted), and for payments thereafter by Gerald to the trustees for the benefit of Lida and the children, to be made out of his share of the profits of two partnerships of which he was a member. From these profits Gerald was to pay the trustees for Lida's benefit an annuity of $15,000 for the first three years and $20,000 thereafter. He was further to pay any difference between the amount of the annuity and one-third of his share of the profits annually until a fund should be established in the hands of the trustees amounting to $300,000, in which Lida, the sons, and Gerald were given interests, either of income or principal or both. In the event of death, resignation, or disability of a trustee, or a successor trustee, the vacancy was to be filled by appointment of the two remaining trustees, or, on their failure to appoint, by the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, on the petition of a remaining trustee or of Lida.

Lida and the three sons are living. Gerald has assigned his interest in the trust to the Second National Bank of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

Gerald performed the agreement until June, 1910, when he repudiated it. Thompson, one of the trustees, Lida and her sons, brought suit in equity in the Common Pleas Court of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, seeking performance of the agreement by Gerald and other relief. Gerald answered praying a declaration that the agreement was void. After a hearing the court entered a decree sustaining the agreement; ordering Gerald to account and to pay what might be shown to be due; removing him as a trustee; fixing a lien upon his partnership interests; and restraining him from encumbering or conveying them until the $300,000 fund contemplated by the agreement should be accumulated in the hands of the trustees.

Page 459

In March, 1915, the trustees then in office petitioned for leave to amend the agreement and for modification of the earlier decree to provide that Gerald should pay and secure to the trustees the payment of sums sufficient to create two funds, one of $400,000 for Lida's benefit and the other of $300,000 principally for the sons' benefit. The court approved the petition and modified its former decree accordingly. May 25, 1925, the trustees then in office acknowledged receipt of all the sums due under the decree of the court as modified and directed that satisfaction of the decree be entered of record. This was done June 3, 1925.

October 9, 1925, the three acting trustees filed an account in the Common Pleas Court, which, in the absence of exceptions, was confirmed. July 7, 1930, a second and partial account was filed in the same court by two surviving trustees on behalf of themselves and a deceased trustee.

On the next day Lida and her son John brought suit in equity in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the two trustees and the administrators of the deceased trustee, alleging mismanagement of the trust funds and praying that the trustees be removed and all the defendants be made to account and repay the losses of the estate. Thereafter the Court of Common Pleas extended the time for filing exceptions to the second account and, on February 16, 1931, exceptions were filed by Gerald P. Fitzgerald, Jr. Meantime the trustees moved to dismiss the bill in the federal court for lack of indispensable parties and because the state court had exclusive jurisdiction of the controversy. May 12, 1931, the federal court refused the motion to dismiss and required the defendants to answer, declaring that it would not decide the question of jurisdiction until after answers had been filed. May 18, 1931, the defendants

Page 460

answered setting up that the controversy was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state court. Nothing further was done in the federal suit until April 17, 1937, when the plaintiffs amended their bill. May 5, 1937, the trustees answered the amendment. Meantime, on May 1, 1937, the trustees had presented a petition in the state court for a rule upon the plaintiffs in the District Court, the petitioners herein, to show cause why they should not be restrained from prosecuting their suit in the federal court. After an answer by Lida denying that the Common Pleas Court had control or possession of the trust funds or that any controversy was therein pending when suit was instituted in the federal court, the rule was made absolute June 17, 1937. July 6, 1937, John Fitzgerald, one of the petitioners, applied to the federal court for an injunction to restrain the defendants in the case there pending, the respondents herein, from further prosecution of the proceedings in the state court. On the same day the petitioners took an appeal from the order of the Common Pleas Court to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. July 19, 1937, the trustees filed in the Common Pleas Court a third and partial account of the trust to which exceptions were filed. Testimony was thereafter taken on the exceptions to the second account. September 18, 1937, the federal court temporarily enjoined the defendants in that court, the respondents herein, from further prosecution of the proceedings in the state court to enjoin the plaintiffs, the petitioners herein, from having the jurisdictional issue tried in the District Court, and set November 8, 1937, for a trial of that issue. Trial was accordingly had.

March 21, 1938, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order of the Common Pleas Court enjoining the petitioners from prosecuting their suit in the District Court,1 and, on the same day, the District Court rendered

Page 461

an opinion holding it had jurisdiction notwithstanding the proceedings in the Common Pleas Court. The District Judge entered no decree but stated that requests for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a form of decree, might be submitted, and that he would proceed thereafter to try the merits of the cause.

We are thus confronted with a situation where each of the courts claiming jurisdiction has restrained the parties before it from proceeding in the other. In view of this unusual state of affairs, of the importance of the question involved, and of the claim that the action of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is in conflict with our decisions, we granted the writ of certiorari. Princess Lida et al. v. Fitzgerald, 305 U.S. 582, 59 S.Ct. 72, 83 L.Ed. —-.

First. The suit brought in Common Pleas Court in 1910 was for the specific performance of the agreement of December 6, 1906. The decree in that suit declared the agreement valid and commanded performance in accordance with its terms. As the agreement called for a continuing performance, and the decree was for enforcement of that performance, the court retained jurisdiction to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
489 practice notes
  • Tucker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. PWG–14–813.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 3 Febrero 2015
    ...the property, and the court in which the later equity action was filed lacks jurisdiction. See Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 (1939) ; United States v. Bank of N.Y. & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463, 477, 56 S.Ct. 343, 80 L.Ed. 331 (1936) ;......
  • Windbourne v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., No. 76 C 237
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 11 Mayo 1979
    ...States Trust Co. of N. Y., 422 F.Supp. 447, 456 (S.D.N.Y.1976), quoting Princess Lida of Thurn and Taxis v. 479 F. Supp. 1157 Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 The Markham Court permitted the suit therein to proceed because the effect of the judgment was to leave undis......
  • Ames Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (In re Ames Dep't Stores, Inc.), Case No. 01–42217 (REG) Jointly Administered
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • 7 Diciembre 2015
    ...a nonbankruptcy court matters that require interpretation and enforcement of this Court's prior orders in the Ames' bankruptcy case.139 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 (1939).140 Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 412, 84 S.Ct. 1579, 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964).141 Claims ## 1......
  • Garamendi v. Executive Life Ins. Co., No. BO66871
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Julio 1993
    ...has exclusive jurisdiction to proceed. ( Donovan v. Dallas, supra, 377 U.S. at p. 412, 84 S.Ct. at 1582; Princess Lida v. Thompson (1939) 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 281, 83 L.Ed. 285; Safeway Trails, Inc. v. Stuyvesant Insurance Co., supra, 211 F.Supp. at p....
  • Request a trial to view additional results
485 cases
  • Tucker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. PWG–14–813.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 3 Febrero 2015
    ...the property, and the court in which the later equity action was filed lacks jurisdiction. See Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 (1939) ; United States v. Bank of N.Y. & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463, 477, 56 S.Ct. 343, 80 L.Ed. 331 (1936) ;......
  • Windbourne v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., No. 76 C 237
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 11 Mayo 1979
    ...States Trust Co. of N. Y., 422 F.Supp. 447, 456 (S.D.N.Y.1976), quoting Princess Lida of Thurn and Taxis v. 479 F. Supp. 1157 Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 The Markham Court permitted the suit therein to proceed because the effect of the judgment was to leave undis......
  • Ames Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (In re Ames Dep't Stores, Inc.), Case No. 01–42217 (REG) Jointly Administered
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • 7 Diciembre 2015
    ...a nonbankruptcy court matters that require interpretation and enforcement of this Court's prior orders in the Ames' bankruptcy case.139 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 (1939).140 Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 412, 84 S.Ct. 1579, 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964).141 Claims ## 1......
  • Garamendi v. Executive Life Ins. Co., No. BO66871
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Julio 1993
    ...has exclusive jurisdiction to proceed. ( Donovan v. Dallas, supra, 377 U.S. at p. 412, 84 S.Ct. at 1582; Princess Lida v. Thompson (1939) 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 281, 83 L.Ed. 285; Safeway Trails, Inc. v. Stuyvesant Insurance Co., supra, 211 F.Supp. at p....
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT