DILLON tl. KANSAS CITY S. B. BY. CO.
109
lay, or to give any reason why the complainant, or those under whom the complainant claims, have not instituted proceedings at an earlier day, and it has been held by tpe supreme court olthe United States that laches may be availed of as' a defense on demurrer. 'Landsdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 610; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U. S. 183, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437. In the latter case, a bill to set aside a marshal's deed nearly 12 years after the sale was held to be too late, and the laches was held sufficient on demurrer. I choose, however, to place my decision in the case upon the ground that Tucker was sufficiently before the court in the foreclosure proceedings to be bound by the decree of sale there made, and that those claiming llnder him cannot now complain that he was not specifically served with process in his individual capacity. The desustained, and the bill dismissed for want of equity.
DILLONet at v.
KANSAS
CITY S. B. RY, Co.
(Oircuit Oourt, W. D. Missouri, W. D. August 18, 1890.) lNlUNOTION-EinNENT DOMAIN-STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.
Under Rev. St. U. S. § 720, which iIorbids federal courts from staying proceed. ingsio state courts except in bankruptcy matters, a federal court will not, p,eod.' tng a condemnation suit io a state court. enjoin the petitioner from entering upon the land sought to be condemned. ' '
In Equity. . This is an application for the writ of injunction, and grows out of the following state of facts ill substance: The Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad Company heretofore began proceedings in the circuit court of Jackson county, Mo., for the condemnation of the right of way over the Missouri Pacific Railway Company tracks within the corporate limits of Kansas City, in said county. Conformably to the state statute in such case, upon presenting the petition to the circuit court, that the two corporations were unable to agree upon the compensation, etc., the court appointed three commissioners toteviewthe premises, and,hear evid'ence, and make report. The commissioners proceeded, and made their report, fixing the compensation at one dollar, and determining the point and manner of making such crossing. To this the Missouri Pacific Railway Company filed exceptions in the state circuit court, the gravamen of which was as to the manner of the proposed crossing. 'On the hearing of the exceptions much evidence was submitted by the parties, and the matter taken under advisement by the state circuit judge. That court having adjourned until term in course, to-wit, October next, the controversy in that court is thus left pending and undetermined. The petitioners, John F. Dillon and Edward D. Adams, now Come to this court, and present their petition, stating, in: 'substance, that they
.
the ofan,d .for, owning,811<1, ·.?Q ,000, boncls, ,secured 9Y '8 on: A:Q,tpe lineE;Qf kno:wo :asJhe Missouri, ,l}ajlrolld, which bear$ d,ate NovemQer.,16, 1880, and, in .<10 Unty·By tile terms and conditions of this is mortgage tbesebondsare I!lotyet due"anq. the right of:possession, and the ,pbssesaion, in fact, S1J.id property remains. with. the mortgago,r, the ,tlw same not having l,>een broken. The bill that the said and mortgagees ,were not Plade parties nornoWied thereof, .and asserts, as to sa,i4condemnation f!-' law, that the statute they are ownEj,l"S, or, . owners, of, the M;isBP\Jri Pacific Railway Company, notice, and, Jo1:?e made, parties defendant in the 90nand especially as to the proposed manner of effecting the crossing thereof by the Belt Railroad Company, as reported- by the said commissioners, the property of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company will be greatly and irreparably damaged, materially with the passage of its cars, carrying .:heights aind" pilssengerll'. 'sb ·its, to' mateHally cripple its traffic and business, and impairing the said securitJi that, as provided by the state statnte:,on the co'm'ing in report by sald commissioners, and filing the sall!e, to clerk state court the BUt;rl,awardeg as.cQIn'pensationby the cODlfuissioners, the said Belt Rail-' ,C()mpany' threatens and, ahout to IJroceed to enter upon the right of way of the Mi!lsouri Pacific Railway said crossing, before the final hearing in said state court on said exceptions, and the right of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company to a trial de nOvo in a jUry therein involved. The ijetjtion thittthe oqly of a crossthe tracks of tlje Missouri- P/:lcific Railway at the point in controversy i,8 either,!:lYlilnover,head Pl1idgeo.ran undergrQut;ldway, to which bQth thecorporatiQn mortgagees give their (JoJlsent, without <l,(?mpensation the 1i3!llt, prayer of the pill,is that an injunetion be.granted said Belt road, its agents, servants, etc., fr91l1going upC;¥land ma,kingsuch oroS$ing. as reported and;frolll;operatip'g! Belt, road at a,grade; crossing, apg - f\jlrther for upon the :finalhearing· · <fcB,'lJlfkn(:l', for, corn .{. ,MeD. -': 'i' I'
the;
()d.:
:'J:he, discul¥!ion,ip ,this 'haJ;! take.n wide range t coveriJ}g iqu botl1- t/.sjo the ty of the prQcee:dings had in th.e,stateCourtalld,the, right of the Q.1Qrtga.gees Qr tru;steesto be,made Proceedipgal :etp" On rn8Iilyof these ques· opipions, t,lileir,expreasionhere is rendered Tllaich¢d upPIlaprelinlinary or i Section 720,Rev. St. ;U. S.,
,:
.'.
,.'
. 1
."
"
\
"-1,
'
DIIlLON tI. KANSAS CITY S.
R'Y. CO.
111
L ," The"wtit of Injunction sha1l"not' be granted by' any court 'qnitEld 'Stateslo stay proceedings ina' court of the state, except in cases wber'e such injUnction may be suthorized by any relating to' 'proceedings in' ruptcy." , , " ,', Tbisrestriction its root in that doctrine of the law so ,aptly Mr. Justice qRIER in Peckv. Jennesa, 7 Row. 624: "lti8 Ii doctrine of law'too established to require a c11ation of thorities that, where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every 'question. Which occurs in the cause, and, whetheritsdecision' b& correct or its judgment, till reversed, is regarded as binding in every other , c0\l:rl;;:,.and, that, ,where the jurisdiction of a court, and the rightofs, plaintiff to p1-'9secute,h,is Iluit:init, haye Once, attached, that right cannot beaqellted or ta'ltetlaway by proceedings in another court. These rules have their found'atiOOi;"notrnerely in com.'lty, but in' necessity; for, if one 'may enjoin, the · othet may retort by injunction, and thus the parties be without remedy;''I)e'ing to ,8 process for contempt in one, ,1£the1 dare to praceed in the other. Neither can one take property from the cUlltody of the other byrll!plev.ip.,; or· ,any for this would produce a conflicteJ,l;tremelyem,to ,the Qfj Ilstice. Inth6 pase of Kmneay, v. !tWl :Q{dOrllsiWs.2, SWll-pst. 313, ,4rd EX.QON at one time,grantedan,iQjl,lDctioD jljo .. ty in., pen.ding i(l thecollrt of sessiOnS whlqh, on, Ulote.·tpatureretlection, he di£lsolved,becauseit ,was ad,tiiitted if the c(u"rt of chanCery collld. in that way restrain of liIessiQnlil' might equally,enjpin the· parties (rlillD proceeding ,in,) chancef:Y, anq thulil ,they ;would be upaule!;!>, .pl·oceed, in eitlil,er court." , In adoption. of; the lldditioil to the act establishing the judicial -oourU '0t the United States as early a$ March 2. 1793 ,thislimitation: 'on 'ihtl"jUi'isdiction of fedeI'alcourts was' upoil.,the force of ve law to .this rule of comity, in preserve the ElS:i eehtial 'and'necesllaty between'the federal and state courts;' and ''to of each. This rule wllsapplied in' Di?J!J8 WolcoU, 4 Oranch. 179, whete an action was first begun in the state ,court upotia 'certain instrilment pof writing. Aftenvardsdefendant be"gR1i ;stiit in ohancery 'in·the'state court to -cancel theinstrument,'and en-joio',the\plaintitrfromproceeding in action; ! On remo\Yal()f · this' to the United Statescourt,the action was dismissed 'Was ,{or th(! "reason that the federal court under the statute in forbidden to'grl1nt the injunetion. This rule has been applied to a va.tietyof actions. :U. S. v. aoUins, 4 Blatchf. 156'; F'i8k v. Rattwa'yCo;. ,6 ,Blat¢hf. 399; Rigg8V. Joh'Mon Co. j 6Wall.195; Ortonv. Smith, 1HRow. '2tllil; Peck v; Jenne88" 8upra; Hainea Vi Carpenter,91 U. S.' 257; In,re Sawyer, 1241 219. 220. 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; Tick Wo OrOl!Jley', 26
vr
Fed. ,Rep. 207. " ..,' " " '", It can make no :difference, as claimed by some of the counsel in' argu-
v.
ment, ,that the !order of restraint .asked. for would "go .against thi{OotpO·ration'and its agents ilnd'servants, and: not against the court aiflll.l'ch;'or any'officer thereof. ' Inipeck v. Jenneaa,aupra,' the' meeUrlgn'like 'suggestion'j,saya:,::, ' : ,', " ',. " , . : '.1.,',
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 43.
fact an injunction goes only to the parties before the court, and not to, the court. is no evasion of the that are the necessary result of ,an ,atterIlpt to exercise the power over a party who is a litigant in another and independent forum." Whether the effect of the injunction is to stay or preve,nt the operation tion of litigation in limine, or a. judgment rendered or to be rendered therein, in the state court first acquiring jurisdiction, it falls within the terms of the prohibition. Haines,v. Caryenter, 91 U. S. 257; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340. Inflensselaer c!t S., R. 00. v. Bennington c!tR. R. 00.,18 Fed. Rep. 617 , the billw.as brought to restrain the d.efendant road from entering upon the orator's railroad under a claim of authority of an act Of the state legislature. The ground of relief claimed was that the legislative act,Wl1sbeyond the power of the legislature, and therefore gave no au, t,h, ority ',to the railroad company to proceed thereunder. "The p rayer of , , , ,bilLwas that the defendant, its officers, agents, and workmen, be refrom running upon that part of the road, and for further relieLThecourt says: , ,,;".48L"O' action or Interference except such as maybe authorized and, had in the supreme C?Ohrt is threatened or apprehended. relief to which the orator is here entitled, unless it is relief from thtiS,e proceedings. " The, pt'osecution of thos,e proceedings,ortha carrying order or decree as the supreme court may ml,lke upon them, must be'reslhUiied If anything effectual is to be done in this (:a8e,' The restraint of 'Vhe I!,:ki'icutioll of complete fulfillment of proceedings of a judicial nature is in effeCt the samess the restraint ot the proceedings themselves." Mr. Justice BRADLEY, in Haines v. Caryenter, supra, said: "lo,;the :11rst place, the great object of the 8uit is to enjoin and stop litigatiop courts, and to bring all th,a litigated questions before the circtlit coprt. " This Is ,one of the things the federal courtaare expressly prohll>itiJ(i doing." So here, the Belt Railway Company, ,ftuthorityof the state statute; c.laims that in the condemnation, proceeding in ,progress in the ,state cQ,urp, Ilfter the coming in and filing of the report of the commissioners,and the payment into the clerk's office of the damages assessed, it, has :ft,rjgM to enter upon the tracks, of the Missouri Pacific Railway Wr the construction of the proposed crossing. The contention of: p,ounselJor the Misso\lri Pacific is that such asserted right is preIUatur!3.!lt stage of the proceeding ,in the state court, and cannot be until after disposition of the exceptions to the report, of the right of a trial de 'IlOl1Obefore a jury at its question in controversy, and pending in demand., .',;But that is the w4ich it is competent to decide; and the unavoidable effect;J;>.f:jj. of injunction from ,this court re.straining the Belt Railway Company, its agents and servants, from entering upon such work and, «Ptllpl{fth)gthe crossing" 'is to stay the rightof'6ntry ,claimed by the condemnation in HIe in the state court, arid·todraw.th.e litigation,tmddetermination of that very question into f c9w1:. A.nd if the order a:nd decree of this cQurt is to effectuate and accomplish the manifest purpose of this application for a writ of
DILLpN .0. KANSAS CITYS. B. BY. CO.
113
it must stop and foreclose any further proceeding in the state court. We cannot shut our eyes to obvious facts, and hear only the form and semblance of things. In Railroad Co. v. Scott; 13 Fed. Rep. 793, suit was instituted in the state court of Texas under the state laws for the condemnation of certain lands for the right of way of the road, Preliminary proceedings had been conducted therein up to the report of the commissioners as to the amount. of damages, and the filing of objections thereto by the defendant Thereupon the railroad company filed its petition and bond for removal of said cause to the United States circuit court. Thebill of compi,aint filed in the United States circuit court charged that the defendantswere proceeding with said cause in said state court in defiance of the petition for removal, which would 'result in the annoyance .and . damageofc;omplainant, compelling it to litigate in two different jurisdictions,; and causing irreparable de1l1Ys and injury to the railroad company in fulfilling and meeting certain contracts. An injunction was therein prayed to restrain the parties ·from any further proceeding in said, pepding action in the state court. PARJ:)EE, . circuit judge, held that the camewitbin the inhibition of section 720. He said: "The case bere is one where the state court undoubtedly had prior jurisdiction, and.thr lltlestion as to whether thatjurisdiction ,has ended. is in dispute the stat., court, undoubtedly, still claiming jurisdiction notwithstallding the petition and bond filed therein to remove the case to this cou,tt.'.rM'ihjunction allked for must be refused." . . 'rhe sllpl'e'rule was followed by Judge DILLON in this circuit inOlwffin v, St., 4 Dill. 19. In that case thele was a litigation in the state court bet:ween the city of St. Louis and the St. Louis Gas-Light Company" quite familiar to the profession and those acquainted with the judicialhistoryof the state. Pending the action in the state court, Chaffin,aQqn-resident stockholder in the gas-light company, filed his bill in the United States circuit court against the city and the gas company and the Laclede Gas Company alleging that, owing to the manner in litigation was being conducted on certain concessions made done therein by the gas company in which he was a stockrights as a stockhulder were being greatly and injury was being done to his stock; and asking that the city be enjoined from further prosecuting said suit, and for certain other matters of relief. The prayer for injunction was amended by striking out so much as asked that the city be enjoined from further prosecuting said suit. Judge DILLON, of this, observed: "But, notWithstanding this, it is evident that to grant the injunction sought would, if it were ,efft>ctuul for any purpose, be so only because it would in some way interfere with the progress of the litigation in that court. This the federal court is probibited from doing directly, by 720, Rev., 8t.. U.S. " If the purpose of this application fot injunction, and its .effect, if granted, be not to prevent the Belt Railway from entering upon .the 'tight of'way of the Missou!:'i Pacific R8.ilroad for the constructionpf a v.43F.no.2-8
'·!irdfetition1Votild anydeCl'eethis'court might make 'afford: the'complainants'? Under theaction already had in-the state coti'rt;'or act upon the () 'flnai to, bEl 'made therEiitl at the :,end, of the litigation, :' Rai'lwayCo¢p.,ny would have the authdrity" of the state court, iand'thestate statute by the 'court,t'o'enter upon the conStl'tiction'oOhe cross-toad'. ' In so'eritering, 'it aIiu'itsetnployes would , the'state court author, thereto:. ToeIiforce tllelnjunctiongranted 'by this coutt its , l marshal'wl:/uld, bEfsent <t6.arrest' the :parties for cOntaIh'pt. ,With equal jUdiCikle'omityand courtesy 1tbbstMe:oourt; on the recogHited' Jtneory'Qfhavrng, firSt 'acquired juriallictidri 'of 'the cause, :' might: injul'ietibn ,against' the United his depui to restrain ,them, from. 'interfering of;the-BeltRai:l'waji'Companyuftdet judgment or ; ''With' ; ptdeeeffihS'S' ofthe I(WM,a:S r cohc6IVtl; the very 'purpose underdiscussioht6"'prevent sucbunh,tirtful Wt,veen' courts and discredit: able 66lliethns b'etween 'ilieir Iriiriistel'ia:l'dfficers.' If, 'as 'COlltendedfor 'by the tl'i:f$tSElll-ofthe tmortgAgees"ltlieyare';Deeessary'parties to the conand 'they -ai'etitit I
() i¢los$illg'Jhnha
hI'
of
:'the¥¢mtiil\#;
MaBjerBOn v. Ra:ilroad O(j., 12 Mo. 342 j tnatter of fact, ;, the at>pJ:optifition of 'olWay-fur the road 'and the tr1atJ.per the -material to the security 'of't1\6 certainly rtotwithout: remedy in ': the ,protection'dt'their rights arid i!iterests., If it '13hotiJd becomeapparent'afUlr the 'riase :is'fiilally ended·illthe state 'oourt, atid'tjrgun operating.itsroa.d:Mer ,that Of '.and the Belt,road had ':the Mi§i!ouri' Paoific, thatJthe liSesd'd'8.maged the'Inortaged"premises' a.s 'IriaterialWirppair the se'ourity, 1, am not prepared' to'say thatJtW& non,'not comb this court 'for api propriate' forin of.llction:.. :aut under the present 8wtusofthe:baEl@[I ;fOrbidden' to :grant the :ternporaty writ of injunction, and the sarmeis -:tefused.:l":'.' ' " ,- ",: ,iL" '
'not bina t11e of, tl;leir, interests
McS1l4+teJ.iiF&tyojMobe;.ly; '79Mb:' '4'1'45.' An4
;L)r;\ .
-l!U
':
!'r
J' .
;,:
1
:i .
: In ,re ;, I
S. D.
New,Yfyrk., j.
LAW. .J , . The act of congress prohibiting the importation of aliens uUder'contract to per',: "fOrJ9 to for1l'oUowinjt t!; S.v; qraig; I -" I " ;" " , , ," , , svJ\'l I;lQt" tp.e t,he treasurY IlQt- to permit rSllch aliens ttl land,the fact't1l.at the refusal of iI permit to land is to con!lne the itnrni· ',:: , ;" ,: ,i -, ; ' ': i -,': ;, ,:' -,