Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Rule
| Decision Date | 27 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,405 |
| Citation | 193 N.W. 161,155 Minn. 302 |
| Parties | UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. WILLIAM H. RULE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Mille Lacs county to restrain defendant from prosecuting an action against plaintiff in violation of an injunction of the district court of Iowa. From an order, Parsons, J., sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Injunction of foreign court against prosecution of injury action not enforceable in Minnesota.
A final decree, rendered by a court of general jurisdiction in another state, permanently enjoining a citizen therein from maintaining and prosecuting an action against another to recover for an injury received through the latter's negligence in the courts of this state, which decree in no manner adjudicates or purports to affect the alleged cause of action for the injury, is not one suable and enforceable in the courts of this state under section 1, article 4, of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of the courts of other states.
Sanborn Graves & Ordway, C. A. Magaw and Douglas F. Smith, for appellant.
George C. Stiles and F. M. Miner, for respondent.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff is a Utah corporation operating a line of railway from Ogden, Utah, to Council Bluffs, Iowa; that on June 16, 1922, the district court of Pottowattamie county, Iowa, a court of record of general jurisdiction, rendered a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in an action therein pending, permanently enjoining and restraining defendant from maintaining or prosecuting any suit instituted in the state of Minnesota against plaintiff on account of the injury sustained by defendant on or about December 13, 1921, while employed by plaintiff as switch foreman, and, particularly, defendant is permanently restrained and enjoined from maintaining that certain action brought by him in the district court of Hennepin county, Minnesota, against this plaintiff for such injury. The complaint also alleges that the district court of said Pottowattamie county had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person of defendant; that the judgment has not been appealed from and is in full force and effect; that defendant in violation of said judgment in September, 1922 began an action in the district court of Mille Lacs county, Minnesota, against this plaintiff to recover for the same injury, which he by said decree of the district court of Pottowattamie county was enjoined from prosecuting in the courts of Minnesota; it invokes for the Iowa decree the full faith and credit guaranteed by the Federal Constitution to judicial proceedings of other states, and prays for judgment perpetually enjoining defendant from attempting to litigate in the courts of this state his right to recover from this plaintiff for the injury sustained as aforesaid. In short, the complaint is founded upon and seeks to enforce against defendant the injunctional decree rendered in the district court of Iowa. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Federal and state authorities are in accord on the proposition that, as to parties domiciled in a state, its courts of general jurisdiction may enjoin one from suing the other in the courts of any other state upon a cause of action suable in the courts of the state of their domicile. Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, 10 S.Ct. 269, 33 L.Ed. 538; Hawkins v. Ireland, 64 Minn. 339, 67 N.W. 73, 58 Am. St. 534; Freick v. Hinkly, 122 Minn. 24, 141 N.W. 1096, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 695; Wilser v. Wilser, 132 Minn. 167, 156 N.W. 271. See also the many cases from other states cited in 14 R.C.L. pp. 411 to 419, and in Weaver v. Alabama Great So. R. Co. 200 Ala. 432, 76 So. 364; Reed's Admx. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 182 Ky. 455, 206 S.W. 794; Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. McGinley, 175 Wis. 565, 185 N.W. 218. Here plaintiff is not an Iowa corporation, but it must be considered as domiciled therein for the purpose of this action, since its line of railroad is there located, in the operation of which defendant received the injury for which he sues in this state. There is no allegation that defendant was domiciled in or a citizen of Iowa, when the action was begun in which the injunctional decree was rendered, but there is an allegation that the Iowa court had jurisdiction of his person and the subject matter of the suit, and as against a demurrer it must be assumed that defendant was a citizen of Iowa, or domiciled therein, if that be necessary to give the court jurisdiction to enter a decree of the nature here involved. Hence the precise question for decision is whether the Iowa decree is one which the courts of this state must enforce pursuant to section 1, article 4, of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of sister states.
It is conceded that the Iowa decree does not in any manner adjudicate or affect defendant's cause of action against plaintiff for the injury received in its employment, but is predicated solely on the proposition that it will impose a needless hardship and expense upon plaintiff to defend in the courts of this state. The Iowa decree is strictly in personam, enforceable solely by proceedings as for contempt. Is this such a judicial proceeding as the Federal Constitution and statutes intend to be suable and enforced in the courts of sister...
To continue reading
Request your trial