Thompson v. McReynolds
| Decision Date | 20 January 1887 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. McREYNOLDS and others. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Syllabus by the Court
In a suit to enjoin the assignment of a judgment in a federal court, the court has jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of the parties to such suit.
Such suit is not an original suit, but is auxiliary to, and dependent, upon, the original suit.
Parties to the original suit, or persons who are not parties to such suit, and who are entitled to any relief in connection with or growing out of the original suit, may come into court, by bill in equity, and have a remedy regardless of citizenship.
D. H Hammond, Ellis & McDaniel, and U. M. & G. B. Rose, for plaintiff.
John G Chandler and Ben T. Du Val, for defendants.
This is a suit in equity, brought to prevent defendant McReynolds from assigning a certain judgment recovered, as is alleged in the bill, in this court, March 4, 1874, in favor of defendants Whittaker and Mathews against the county of Carrol, in the state of Arkansas, and in this district, for the sum of $13,988.96. It is alleged in the bill that said judgment was in truth the property of McReynolds, and that Mathews and Whittaker were only trustees for McReynolds. It is further alleged that McReynolds, being insolvent, executed to defendant Claypool a general assignment of his property for the benefit of creditors,-- said assignment is made part of the bill, and is void on its face; that plaintiff has recovered a judgment against McReynolds in the circuit court of the state, for Benton county, for the sum of $1,252.25 that said McReynolds has no other property of any kind which can be subjected to the payment of the debt of plaintiff save and except the judgment of this court; that, unless McReynolds is prevented, he will assign the judgment in this court for the fraudulent purpose of preventing an application of its proceeds to the payment of the judgment debt due to your orator. It is prayed in the bill that McReynolds may be enjoined from assigning said judgment of this court. This suit is against S.D. McReynolds, S. H. Claypool, Leonard Mathews, Edward Whittaker, and Carrol county. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff, and defendants McReynolds, Claypool, and Carrol county, are citizens of Arkansas, and of this district. Mathews and Whittaker are citizens of Missouri. This fact is conceded. The defendants file a demurrer, and for cause thereof they say 'that, upon the facts stated in said bill, this court has no jurisdiction of the cause, because citizenship and residence of none of the parties, complainant or defendant, are averred in the bill, and, for all that appears, none of them except Carrol county may be citizens or residents of any state.'
The sole question raised by this demurrer is whether, in this kind of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braithwaite v. Jordan
...subsequent to judgment is as essential to jurisdiction as process antecedent to judgment. Rio Grande v. Vinet, 132 U.S. 478; Thompson v. McReynolds, 29 F. 657. Debt on recognizance of bail is a continuation of original suit, because as a general rule the action must be brought in the same c......
-
St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Byrnes
...a person not theretofore a party, if sufficient interest in the judgment is shown, can file an ancillary bill, citing Thompson v. McReynolds and others (D. C.) 29 F. 657, and McDonald v. Seligman et al. (C. C.) 81 F. 753, both of which cases hold that a stranger to the record claiming his i......
-
Dickey v. Turner
...St. L. S. F. R. Co. v. Byrnes, 24 F.(2d) 66, 69 (C. C. A. 8); Schenck v. Peay, 21 Fed. Cas. pages 667, 669, No. 12450; Thompson v. McReynolds (D. C.) 29 F. 657. The situation was not changed because parties other than Dickey were made defendants. Krippendorf v. Hyde, supra; Venner v. Pa. St......