W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur

Eighth Circuit

W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur

267 F. 184, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2159

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 1920

DocketNo. 5426

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 267 F. 184 (W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Arthur, 267 F. 184, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2159 (8th Cir. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa enjoining proceedings iti a state court of Oklahoma.

The W. E. Stewart I,and 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.”

[1,2] In the Iowa case there was no custody of property which might lawfully he 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 Fed. 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.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa enjoining proceedings iti a state court of Oklahoma.

The W. E. Stewart I,and 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.”

[1,2] In the Iowa case there was no custody of property which might lawfully he 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 Fed. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F. 184, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-e-stewart-land-co-v-arthur-ca8-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack