Case ID: f2d_242/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MacNEIL BROS. COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JUSTICES of the SUPERIOR COURT et al., Defendants, Appellees.
    No. 5192.
    United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
    Heard March 7, 1957.
    Decided March 20, 1957.
    
      Angus M. MacNeil, Somerville, Mass., for appellant.
    Edward F. Mahony, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts, with whom George Fingold, Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts, was on the brief, for appellees.
    „ . „ T , Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Cir- , cui u ges.
   PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On August 6, 1956, MacNeil Bros, Company, a Massachusetts corporation, filed its complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the defendants not named, but described as “the Justices of the Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”. It was alleged that, by various acts and omissions of the defendants under color of their respective offices as justices of the courts of Massachusetts, the plaintiff has been deprived of its property without due process of law and has been denied equal protection of the laws, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.

,, , „ It seems that MacNeil Bros. Company has been involved m litigation in the courts of Massachusetts m an effort to redeem certain parcels of real estate, the mortgages on which had been foreclosed by the mortgagee. See State Reaty Co. of Boston, Inc. v. MacNeil Bros Co., Mass.1956 135 N.E.2d 291. In the complaint now before us, the federal district court is requested to order and direct the said justices of the Massachusetts courts to immediately furmsh to the plaintiff equal protection of its property to that furnished to other property owners in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to issue the required orders to terminate the waste and destruction of the plaintiff’s property by the State Realty Company of Boston, Inc. acting under the protection of present orders of said defendants”; also the federal district court is requested to “ascertain and determine the losses an^ damages suffered by the plaintiffs [sic] by reason of the refusals and failures of the defendants to furnish equal protection under the laws to the ?ht/ d proüerties of the plaintiff f , and f from losses and destruction by the State Realty Company of Boston, Inc. and those claiming under it.”

It would be difficult to imagine a more flagrant and provocative interference by a federal district court with the processes of litigation in a state court than what is sought by the present plaintiff-appellant. Compare the discussion f Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1941. 314 U.S. 118, 62 S.Ct. 139, 86 L.Ed. 100. Naturally a federal court of e(lmty’ lf otherwise empowered to a^; would hesitate as a matter of ju¿heial discretion to grant relief of the dellcate character here asked for’ when any ,federal constitutional claim arising m *he, course of the state litigation ™Sbt be Presented to the United States Supreme Court on certiorari. In fact does no^ aPPear that MacNeil Bros, Company ever sought a writ of certiorari in State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc. v. MacNeil Bros. Co., supra, wherein Chief Justlce Qua> in an elaborate opinion, and with extraordinary pa- ,. , ...... , , tienee, undertook to sift out and determine ^ legal issueg in a mixed_up and licated iece of iitigation. And .f it ig true> ag aggerted at the oral ar. gum ^ the fltate courtg are thwart. ing reyiew on certiorari by refuging to enter final judgments, such an obstacle to ^ potential appe]late jurisdiction of ^ g me Court of the United States , . , ... .gsued ^ Court. See McClellan v. Carland, 1910, 217 U.S. 268, 30 S.Ct. 501, 54 L.Ed. 762.

Apart from the foregoing, it is clear that the district court was right in dismissing the complaint. See Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 1906, 203 U.S. 109, 111, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L.Ed. 111; Marshall v. Crotty, 1 Cir., 1951, 185 F.2d 622, 626-27. Appellant’s effort to collect damages against the state court judges is foreclosed by our decision in Francis v. Crafts, 1 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 809.

A judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.