Sullivan v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 6241.,6241. |
| Citation | 4 F.2d 100 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Allyn Smith, of Cotter, Ark., for plaintiffs in error.
Before SANBORN and KENYON, Circuit Judges, and BOOTH, District Judge.
The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company was, in the summer of 1922, and long had been, a railroad corporation engaged in the transportation of passengers and freight in interstate commerce through the states of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. It commenced a suit in equity in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the International Association of Machinists and many individual defendants, and upon proper proof procured from that court on July 21, 1922, a preliminary injunction against the defendants named therein and all other persons affiliated, acting, confederating, combining, conspiring, or arranging with them, whereby such persons were restrained from interfering by violence or threats of violence with any person in the employ of the railway company, with any person desiring to be employed by such company, and by such means from in any way interfering with or hindering the operation of its railroad in interstate commerce. Upon evidence presented to the court which issued the injunction that at Tulsa, in the Eastern district of Oklahoma, Harry Sullivan, who was a member of the International Association of Machinists and had knowledge of the issuance and existence of the preliminary injunction, and H. A. Speight had violated it, that court on August 2, 1922, issued its writ of attachment to the marshal of its district, directing him to arrest Sullivan and Speight and bring them before that court on August 14, 1922, to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. They were arrested in the Eastern district of Oklahoma, taken before Judge Williams, the judge of that district, who in due course ordered them to be extradited to Judge Cotteral of the Western district for trial. After their arrival before Judge Cotteral, that judge ordered a case entitled United States v. Harry Sullivan, H. A. Speight, et al., to be docketed in his court, and Sullivan and Speight were thereafter prosecuted by the United States in that case, tried, convicted, and sentenced for contempt of court.
Their counsel throughout the proceedings challenged the jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Western District of Oklahoma to enjoin any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennington v. State
...Cases cited by C.J.S. for the proposition that courts have jurisdiction over acts committed without their state are Sullivan v. United States, 4 F.2d 100 (8th Cir.1925); Hunter v. United States, 48 App.D.C. 19 (1918); Prine v. State, 143 Miss. 231, 108 So. 716 (1926); Snow v. Hawkes, 183 N.......
-
Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Garcia
...Missouri district court under that court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce or protect its injunction order.”);23Sullivan v. United States, 4 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir.1925) (“[T]he court which issues the injunction is the court against which the contempt is committed and the court which has......
-
Golden v. Discover Bank (In re Golden)
...2123 ; Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. , 481 U.S. 787, 797-98, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987) ; Sullivan v. United States , 4 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1925) ). And it argues that if "the Court allows [Ms. Golden] to proceed with her attempt to represent a nationwide class o......
-
Klett v. Pim
...Cir.1963) (Ohio judgment nominally registrable in New York district courts, but injunctive portion not enforceable); Sullivan v. United States, 4 F.2d 100 (8th Cir.1925) (court that issues injunction is court against which contempt is committed and which has jurisdiction to issue sanction).......