Vowinckel v. N. Clark & Sons

• Citation: 162 F. 991
• Decision Date: 15 June 1908
• Docket Number: 14,616.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: VOWINCKEL v. N. CLARK & SONS.

162 F. 991

VOWINCKEL v. N. CLARK & SONS.

No. 14,616.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. California.

June 15, 1908

Campbell Metson, Drew, Oatman, & Mackenzie, for complainant.

Mastick & Partridge and Wm. R. Davis, for respondent.

VAN FLEET, District Judge.

The bill in this case, filed here on December 6, 1907, asks an injunction to restrain the respondent, a corporation, from operating its factory in Alameda county, alleged to be a nuisance, and damages for injury caused to complainant's property thereby. The respondent has interposed a motion supported by the facts, for an order staying all proceedings in the suit until the final determination of an action based upon the same facts as set out in the bill here, and for the identical relief, heretofore, on November 15, 1906, commenced by complainant against this respondent in the superior court of the state for Alameda county, which is still pending therein undetermined, and in which an injunction pendente lite granted by that court still subsists.

The only question presented is as to the propriety of the order asked. The complainant in opposing the motion takes the ground that the order is authorized only where the case is of such a nature that the court first obtaining jurisdiction thereof has taken actual or constructive possession or control of the subject-matter of the controversy, and that the rule does not apply to actions in personam. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that the rule is beset by no such limitation, but is governed solely by the question of the identity of the parties and the controversy but that, if such limitation exists, it is satisfied by the fact that the state court has potentially at least taken control of the subject-matter by its injunction. The general rule upon the subject is very clearly stated and ably discussed by the late Judge Hawley of this circuit, in Rodgers v. Pitt (C.C.) 96 F. 668, 670. In that case a suit to determine conflicting claims to a water right, the Circuit Court had first obtained jurisdiction of all the parties, and the complainant applied for an injunction restraining the prosecution of an action theretofore commenced in the state court involving the same controversy and subject-matter. In the opinion granting the restraining order, it is said:

'The general rule is well settled that, where different courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the parties, the subject-matter, the specific thing, or the property in controversy is entitled to retain the jurisdiction to the end of the litigation, without interference by any other court. This rule is important to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts whose powers are liable to be exerted within the same spheres and over the same subjects and parties. There is but one safe road for all the courts to follow. By adhering to this rule, the comity of the courts, national and state, is maintained, the rights of the respective parties preserved, and the ends of justice secured, and all unnecessary conflicts avoided. Any other rule would be liable at any time to lead to confusion, if not open collision, between the courts, which might bring about injurious and calamitous results. This rule is elementary law, and a citation of all the authorities in its support would be endless and useless.'

And, after citing a large number of authorities in support of the text, it is further said:

'The general rule, as above stated, is clear, plain, and positive. There is no room for any dispute or controversy as to its correctness, but a careful examination of the authorities shows that many of them do not march up to the full-breasted jurisdiction therein enumerated. The truth is that the language of the courts is used with reference to the facts presented in the cases before them, and is properly confined to such facts, and limited to the direct question there presented. To illustrate: Some of the authorities say the court 'which first acquired jurisdiction of the parties'; others the court 'which first acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter'; others, 'of a cause which presents the same issues and seeks the same relief'; others, the court which 'first takes cognizance of the controversy'; others, the court which 'first obtained possession of the property' in controversy. It is clear that this court first obtained jurisdiction over the person of the complainant. There is no pretense that the state court ever acquired any jurisdiction over him until long after the commencement of the suit and service of process in this court. Neither court has ever acquired possession of the land or water. There is no case cited by counsel which can be said to be on 'all fours' with the present, and it is the duty of this court to ascertain, from the facts before it, the germ of the principle that must govern and control the

...