Williams v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 01 October 1886
• Citation: 28 F. 872
• Parties: WILLIAMS and another v. MORRISON and another. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

28 F. 872

WILLIAMS and another v. MORRISON and another. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri.

October, 1886

Charles A. Davis and C. D. Yancey, for plaintiff.

Frank M. Estis, for defendants.

TREAT J., (charging jury orally.)

The case you are now called upon to consider differs in many aspects from those ordinarily presented to a jury. This property,-- I mean the real estate, including this mine,-- it seems, belonged to Mr. Lawrence, either individually, or to him and Mr. Morrison as tenants in common. As to the use of said property, either one could give a license. It did not require their joint assent thereto.

It would appear from the testimony as offered that there was some proposition pending for a lease of this property to several parties, one of whom was Mr. Williams. That lease never was executed. In the mean time Mr. Williams and some others proceeded to quarry. A lease having been subsequently executed to Mr. O'Keefe, notice was given by him to these parties to leave the premises. If it was a mere license on the part of the owners of the property, it was terminable on notice. Now, if these parties afterwards proceeded to quarry, and then the property was not removed from the premises, and it was replevied under process from the state court, this cause of action will not lie. Further than that if, after the process issued in Wayne county, these parties continued to quarry, and mix the new blocks and old ones so as to produce what is called in law a 'confusion' of property, they cannot recover. The particular element of the case is-- First, did these parties have a license to quarry under the rule just stated? If so, was that license revoked? Second, was all the property included in the replevin suits in Wayne county? Third, if not included in the precise terms were there added to these respective piles other blocks which could not be clearly distinguishable when the officer went to serve the process on them?

It is most important that it should be understood (and that is the reason this court directs your attention especially thereto) that, where process is pending in a judicial proceeding in a state tribunal, this court carefully refrains, under the rules of law, and is bound so to do, from interfering with those judicial proceedings. It is also the duty of a judge on the United States bench to promptly repel any effort on the part of a state court or state officer to interfere with any matters in the custody of the United States marshal; and this court is bound to see that no interference is had with the state court. Now, if it should turn out,...