W.E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur
| Decision Date | 23 August 1920 |
| Docket Number | 5426. |
| Citation | 267 F. 184 |
| Parties | W. E. STEWART LAND CO. v. ARTHUR. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
W. F. Zumbrunn, of Kansas City, Mo., A. Ray Maxwell, of Corning, Iowa, and E. E. Bowers, D. C. Meyer, and Floyd S. Strattan, all of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa enjoining proceedings in a state court of Oklahoma.
The W. E. Stewart Land Company, having sued Arthur in the court below upon two checks and a promissory note, afterwards brought an action against him upon the same instruments in the Oklahoma court, where it attached property as fraudulently conveyed and had a receiver appointed. It started to take testimony in aid of its Oklahoma action, whereupon at Arthur's instance the court below enjoined it from taking his deposition and from 'in any manner proceeding' in that case, so as to interfere in any way with his right to have a trial of the Iowa action 'according to the usual and ordinary procedure for the trial of such cases.'
In the Iowa case there was no custody of property which might lawfully be protected by the injunctive process. It was purely in personam. The pendency of two or more such actions between the same parties upon the same causes of action in different jurisdictions gives to the court in which the first was brought no power to enjoin the prosecution of the others. Each may take its normal course. See Barber Asphalt Co. v. Morris, 132 F. 945, 66 C.C.A. 55, 67 L.R.A. 761. The prohibition of injunctions by courts of the United States staying proceedings in state courts extends to all steps in the progress of a cause. This obviously includes the taking of depositions. Otherwise a case might be effectively halted at the start or brought to failure.
The order is reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Wert
...Merritt v. American Steel-Barge Co., 8 Cir., 79 F. 228, 232-234; Standley v. Roberts, 8 Cir., 59 F. 836, 844, 845; W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur, 8 Cir., 267 F. 184, 185; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 7 Cir., 119 F. 678, Section 265 of the Judicial Code (§ 379, U.S.C., Title 28......
-
Armour & Co. v. Miller
...& Co., because there was no custody of property in the federal court to be protected by the injunctive process. See Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur (C.C.A.) 267 F. 184. In the case of Kline v. Burke Construction Co., supra, the Supreme Court quoted with seeming approval what was said in Baltimor......
-
Burke Const. Co. v. Kline
...the same state of facts, so far as they relate to the question under discussion here, existed as in Stanton v. Embry. In W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur, 267 F. 184 C.C.A.), the land company first sued Arthur, the defendant, upon two checks and a promissory note in the federal court in the......
-
Haney v. Wilcheck, 48
...the results are the same and the principles set out in Kline v. Burke Construction Company still apply. See W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur, 8 Cir., 267 F. 184, 185 (cited in Kline v. Burke Constr. Co.), where a plaintiff sued for a money recovery in the federal court in Iowa and later sue......