United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co.

Supreme Court

United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co.

176 U.S. 317, 20 S. Ct. 423, 44 L. Ed. 485, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1739

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 26, 1900

Docket130

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 176 U.S. 317 (United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co., 176 U.S. 317, 20 S. Ct. 423, 44 L. Ed. 485, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1739 (1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

It is conceded by counsel for the Government that so much of the bill as alleges that by treaties with the Pottawatomie *320 Indians and the act admitting Kansas into the Unión the reservation was excluded from the State and from, the jurisdiction of Kansas, is erroneous, and' may be ignored.

Section 6 of the act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, c. 119, supra, contains this provision:

“ Each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to th© laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside.”

Upon these admissions and facts the case comes clearly within the provision of section, 720 of the Revised Statutes, to the effect that no writ of injunction shall be granted by a court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State except in matters of bankruptcy. Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 257. In this latter casó, Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

“ In the first place, the great object of the suit is to enjoin ahd. stop litigation in the state courts, and to bring all the litigated questions before the Circuit Court. This is one of the things which the Federal courts are expressly prohibited from doing. By the act of March 2, 1793, it was declared that a writ of - injunction shall ^not be granted to stay proceedings in a state court. This prohibition is repeated in sec. 720 of the Revised Statutes, and extends to all cases except where otherwise provided by the bankrupt law.”

Without stopping to consider any other questions presented by counsel this is súfficient to sustain the ruling of the Circuit Court,,and the decree is

Affirmed

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

It is conceded by counsel for the Government that so much of the bill as alleges that by treaties with the Pottawatomie *320 Indians and the act admitting Kansas into the Unión the reservation was excluded from the State and from, the jurisdiction of Kansas, is erroneous, and' may be ignored.

Section 6 of the act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, c. 119, supra, contains this provision:

“ Each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to th© laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside.”

Upon these admissions and facts the case comes clearly within the provision of section, 720 of the Revised Statutes, to the effect that no writ of injunction shall be granted by a court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State except in matters of bankruptcy. Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 257. In this latter casó, Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

“ In the first place, the great object of the suit is to enjoin ahd. stop litigation in the state courts, and to bring all the litigated questions before the Circuit Court. This is one of the things which the Federal courts are expressly prohibited from doing. By the act of March 2, 1793, it was declared that a writ of - injunction shall ^not be granted to stay proceedings in a state court. This prohibition is repeated in sec. 720 of the Revised Statutes, and extends to all cases except where otherwise provided by the bankrupt law.”

Without stopping to consider any other questions presented by counsel this is súfficient to sustain the ruling of the Circuit Court,,and the decree is

Affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 U.S. 317, 20 S. Ct. 423, 44 L. Ed. 485, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-parkhurst-davis-mercantile-co-scotus-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack