Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-02-23

These points present the same question that has
been repeatedly Lefore this Court, and received IN
most deliberate consideration and judgment, viz.
whether the proceedings in suits IN equity in the
Courts Of the United States in the District OF
louisiana are required to be according to the eours.
OF Chaneery practice, and in conformity TO that
which adopted and esta bished in the other States
IL a not intended to 60 into examination Of this
question that is new and undecided, hut bare
iy TO refer the which have been heretofore
decided by this Court. In the OF Liyingston
rs Story which came before this Court in the year
1885, 10 Peters, 655,l the Court took occasion To
examine the various laws OF the United States
establishing and organizing the District Court in
Louisiana, and to decide whether that Court had
equity powers, and, n 50, what should be the mode
OF proceeding in the exercise of such powers. The
various cases which had been before the Court in.
voving substantially the same question IT, relation
20 the States, where there were no Equity State
Courts, or laws regulating the practice in equity
causes, were referred to. And the uniform decisions
OF TINS Court have been that there being no Equity
state Courts did prevent the exercise Of equity
jurisdiction m the Courts OF the United Ststes And
II was accordingly decided that the District Court
OF LOUISIANA was bound to proceed in equity causes
hceorung 10 the principles, rules, and uSages which
belong TO Courts Of Equity, as OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
IRON Courts OF Common Law. That the ACTS of
Congress have distinguished between remedies AT
common law and in equity. And that, to effec-
tuate the purposes of the Legislature, the RENEE
dlssn the Courts Of the United States are to be at
common law or IN equity according TO the practice
OF he state Courts hut according the principles of
common law and equity distinguished and defined
IN mat country from which we derived know ledge
nose principles subject OF course such
%Congress might think proper TO make. But that no
ACT Congresshad been passed affecting this oues-
'on That the act Of Congress of 1924 could have no
applcaon to the case because there were no Court,
OF Equity or State laws in Louisiana reg uating the
pra',ee in equity cases. And, again, in the same
case oil Story rs. Livingston, which came before the
Court IN 1889, us $751; OF the exceptions taxi
en- to tho Masters report was, that, by rule Of tho
District Court, Chaheery practice had been abolish
OF, ana mat such proceeding was unknown TO the
practice of the Court. This Court says no such
rule appears on the record. But we think the oc-
casion proper one to remark that, il any such rule
has been made by the District Court Of Louisiana,
II Is IN violation OF those rules which the Supreme
Court OF the United States has passed To resnI,,a
tue practice in the Courts of Equity Of the United
States That tho; rules are as obligatory upon The
Courts OF the United States in Louisiana as upon
all other United States Courts. Aud that the only
modlhc itlons or additions that be made in then,
by the Circuit or District Courts are suc1 AZ ,hal
not he inconsistent with the rules thus prescribed
ana thi'' where such rules do not apply, the prsc-
wee o, me Circuit and District Courts be resu-
lated by the practice OF the Court of Chaneerv in
England. That parties TO suits in Louisiana have
a right TO the benefit OF these rules nor can
they be denied, by any rule or order. without
causing delays producing unnecessary and
oppressive expenses, anj, in the greater num-
Der OF cases, an entire denial OF eouit,be
rights. That his Court has said upon more than
one OCCASION, after mature deliberation that tbs
Courts of the United States in Louisiana p,s,ess a.
quny powers under the Constitution and laws of
the United States. That, if there are any laws in
LOUISIANA directing the mode OF proceeding in eoui-
~ causes, they adoted by the oct of the 26,h of
May, 1924, and will govern the practice of the
Courts oil the United States. But, as has been al.
ready SAID, there such laws in Louisiana
anu OF course the act cannot apply. And, in the
case ex pirte Poultney the Guy of Inf,veite
W. refers lI4,) this Court said the rulers ofChsn
Gerry practice IN Louisiana the rules prescrib-
ei oy this Court Tor the government of the Courts
OF the United States, under the authority given bv
the act OF the sth Of May, 1882. And again in the
year 1889. IN the case parte.si atom mr.
w Nr. 10, inj As-etGpon s h,aaIy
ney, tIS "'.,I IMPLICATION was MADE 70 mi,
Nourl Iof a mandamus To compel the District Judge
10 proceed IN this case according TO the course m
Chancery practice, upon petition to the Court re-
presenting that he had refused so to do but had an
tered an order that all further PROCEEDINGS ,bonId
DC eonIormahe TO the provisions of the code oT
uSe ~ LOUISIANA, and the acts Of the Legislature
OF mat state Jpn this apple itiou this Cort nga;n
declared that 1t Is the duty of the Cour, N rosJ
W inc sun according 10 the rules prescfibed bv ,be
supreme Court for proceedings in eouitv causes a,
the eoruAry term, 1922. That the proceedings Of
the District Judge and the orders made Nv b,,, ~ L
tune very order now in question: were not in
conformity with those rules and with Chaneerv mac
uce; out that 4 was not case in which ma ndsmus
ought 10 issue, because the District JUDGE was nro
eeedlng IN the cause, and however irregular rhot
proceeding might be, the appropriate redress. II
my IS 10 oe obtained by an appeal after a final
ueciee, snail be made in the cause That a Krit
OF mandamus was not the appropriate remedy for
| any orders which may be made in a cause 10
Judge IN the exercise OF his authority. pIthonsh
lney may seem to bear harshly or opprsssivey up-
| on the party. ~ Up
such are the views which have been heretofora
taken by this Court upon the questions raised bv
he points which have been certified in the record
before u.s. and which leave no doubt that thew must
all be answered in the affirmative; these questions
having been 50 repeatedly decided by this Court.
ana me grounds upon which they rest SO fully stat.
ed and published la the reports that il IS unneces.
sary, not unit, now TO treat This rs an omen ours
ton IL is matter OF extreme regret il appears 10 n,
setied determination Of the District JUDGE moi IN
suner ChaHcery practice to prevail in the Circuit
Court IN Louisiina IN equity causes in total disre.
gard OF The repeated decisions ofths Court and the
rues OF practice established Ivy the Supreans Cont
10 be observed IN Chancery cases
ms Court, as has been heretofore dec;ded b,e
not the power 10 compel that Court 10 proce.d ac
eo'dirg TO those established rules All tbnt We can
DO Is to prevent proceedings otherwise by reversing
hen when brought here on appeal
All the questions presented by the record are
accordingly, answered in the affirmative
true copy. Teste: WIN. THOS CARROLL
Clerk S. c. U. s.
WING MEETING IN GREENE.