Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1867-05-29
ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE AND VIRGINIA ADVERTISER

erty from the custody Of the other by Tepler'n,
or anu other process. for this s4could produce Il
conflict Extremely embarrassing 10 me dawanas-
tration Of justice.. In the case OF hennedv vs.
The Earl of Cassilis, Lord Eden at one time
granted an injunction to restrain a party from
proceeding in suit pending in the Court OF
Sessions Of Scotland, which on more mature
reflection he dissolved because 1t WAS admitted II
the Court Of Chancery could IN that way re-
strain proceeding in al independent foreign trl
bunal, the Court Of Sessions might equally Ell
ioin the parties from proceeding IN chanrery and
thus they would be unable to proceed in either
Court. The fact therefore, thGt an Injunction
issues oniy to tic parties jsfore the Court. and
not to the Court IS no eUaSt0n Of tile difficulties
that arctic necessary result Of an attempt TO er
ercise that poaUcT ovsr pGTty q0HO Is q itti0Gut
j., another and Independent Jorunln
The act of Congress OF the End Of March,
17o3 cb. G6, u.s. declares that writ CT iniunc
ton shall not be granted, TO stay proceedings
in sny Court of q State" In the case CT Digs
vs.. Wolcott 4 Cranch, ll9, the decree Of the
nroceedinc ina suit pending iii q State Court
and this Court reversed tho decree, because it
had no jurisdiction to njoin proceedings i'll q
State Court.
The same doctrine is TO De found II the case
Of Orion vs. Smith, 18th Howard Ihis case Is
moi unlike in some Of its features. he case I'M
der consideration The Court say The decree
in this case demonstrates this imprnprlcty OF the
interference of the Court OF the United States,
and If lis entertaining jurisdiction Of question
of title then pending iii the state Court Ii
is true ii this ware all ejtctmehL III IL Court OF
law the prccedcncY Of another eiectlnent be
tween the same parties lnig bit not have afforded
sufficient ground for plea Of outer "ctt01 pc"
daut nor would the Court have been bound
even by comfy, to await the declslon ol lhe
State Court or suffer tho cause pending before
them to be in any way affected by 1t. But de-
& If a u %
must necessarily operate by way OF est0ppcl, Il.
10 the title Of the land and conclude all the
parties to it. because it would put an end to all
litigation between them. II they have suits
pending in other Courts, on The same question
Of title, they mu:t cease. This bill acts by in
junction on the par1y-no injunction ever goes
to the Court having concurrent jurisdiction
Of the question. The Court of the " nited States
have no such power over aHttor8 IN Il Stats
Court; but IL decree on dill of peace which
dare not put an end to litigation IL Il mere
GrutuUs fuineeu. Uniess the Court Gun make Il
decree which it can execute, 1t Is u sufficient
reason for refusing to take cOEni:ancc of the
case 1t is IL rule absolutely necessary 10 be
observed by Courts who have Il concurrent IN
rsdiction, that in all cases where tho iuri2dic
ton Of q Court and the RICH Of plaintiff to
prosecute his suit in it have once attached that
rig hit cannot be arrested or taken away by pro.
ccedinga in another Court" This rule, it is
said has its foundation not merely in comfy,
but in necessity. If one may eDjon the other
may rctort by Injunction, and thus the pant ties
be without remedy" See Peel: W. ,Icnnis, I
Howard 625 Taylor W. Royal, Saxon. Wall
Ell.
If the decree in this case can be Of any value
whatever, let lis look al tho consequence which
may possibly and probably will arise in case it
is enforced.
Orion cluming as tho honalide assignee and
purchaser of the title bond given by Knob has
II bill pending i'm the State Court To compel II
transfer of The legal title. Pending Ihis litlgn'
ton, Knob assigns lho legal title t" " citizen OF
another State, who comes into the Conrt Of the
United States praying IN Injunction against
Orion from setting up his title. Suppose the State
Court decree the title to he in orion, and com
prls X mob ami Smith, his assignee, la release
the legal title TO him? Now the Court below
has made II decree that cnloius Ortom from ever
setting up his title NgAluSJSmith. 1t IS true the
decree protests nguin$t interference with pro-
ceclinns in State Court; but unless ii is con-
strued rs to bo perfect "leo de ae " II must
be enforced in favor Of complainant somehow.
Whom the Sheriff puts Drton in possession IN
der the decree Of the State Court and .eXpes
Smith, the Circuit Court, by its officer, must
replace Smith or mprson Orion for contempt
This would indeed be Il Illuminating spectacle.
Such Il disrepuLable collision Of jurisdictions
should be seluously avoided. This can only be
done by refusing to entertain Il bill Of peace for
an injunction when the title is in litigation in
Court Of concurrent urlsdctioni otherwise,
the result Of bill OF peace may DO not peace,
but war and, instead of di>pelling q cloud"
from the title of either parry, will doubly in
crease the darkness ana difficulty with which
further recognized in I'ay oc W. Colbuth 10th
Howard 5S4 Truman Vs. Howe Nth Howard
$50, Buck W.. Colbuth Sd Wallace 34l. Judge
Miller delivering the opinion Of the Court in
this case says: "A departure from this rule
would lead to the utmost confusion and to end
loss .trif hat Of
dctlon deriving their powers from the same
source but how much more disastrous would
be the consequences Of such course in the con
fict Of Jurisdiction between Courts where pow
are derived from cntirely different sources,
while the jurisdiction IS concurrent as to the
parties, and the subject matter Of the suit
The mplainanta and Their counsel however
having declined, in obedience t. the order Of
INJUNCTION, of the United States Court, which
has been executed upon them, to take any steps
in the case further than TO submit the matter
10 the discretion OF the Court for its action lln-
der the circumstances, und the Court being un
willing SD to act, ns to produce collision be.
tween it, and the United States Court further
than its duty to the parties itigant in the
Court demand, and the ends Of justice require
and it appearing that Fowle ;5nowden u Co
one of the co-defcndants and largely interested
IN It's decision, have through their Attorney Il.
O. Claughton, Esq, who ls not subject to the
order Of injunction, moved the Court to hear
the case, at least 50 Tar as their interests
are involved, but the Court being Of the
opinion that it would be improper, III tie pres
ent condition Of the case, to hear the case in
part will allow the said FCw'le, :3nowden &
Co, or any other OF tho defendants, similarly
situated who may deem it necessary, to file
cross bills, asserting their various equities and
priorities against the plaintiffs and their Co de-
PENDANTS; and this cause is reconlnitted 10 the
Commissioner for any further report, that either
of the parties may, deem ,expedent and for
such further execution Of the order OF Noveul-
bor L. 1866, rs may be necessary.
a ROMANTIC AFFAIR-The Mobile Tribune
gives the particulars Of a little affair which
recently occurred at ChuBchula, OH the Mobile
and Ohio Railroad It appears that young
man made remarks derogatory to the character
of young lady living in Chunchula, which
coming to her ears, she resolved to take the
matter in her own hands and aTehge the in
suit She at once repaired to the house OF the |
individual, AMI commanded him to rrtract his |