Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1867-05-29
1MpnarANT OPINION.

i VI e'''
10 the Circuit Court, now 10 session IN tals
city, yesterday, and as it embraces the question
of the right of the Judge Of the U. s. DISTRICT
Court, to interfere with the proceedings OF the
State Courts, will be read with Interest:
Alexandria Il Washington Il. r. Co
Wash; Alexandria s. Georgetown h. Il. Co. 2
In this case the plaintiffs instituted suit against
the defendant in April, 1866. seeking to sci
aside sale, under which the read had been
sold and transfer ed to the said defendants py
Joseph g. Stewart, one of the defendants TO
this bill, who had been substituted as trustee IN
lieu Of Walter, Lennox, under an order OF 1ne
County Court of Alexandria. made on the 80
day Of February, 1862 This suit has bean ma
tured, and came upon the docket at the Noyen1-
Der term, 1866. AT that Court a general de-
murrer was filed to the bill of the plaintiffs ana
fully argued, involving tho whole merits OF the
controversy, and the Court at that Time being
of the opinion that the sale made by the trustee,
substituted by the County Court OF Alexandria,
was illegal and not sufficient to protect the de-
PENDANTS from the claim of the plaintiffs III this
suit, oYerruled the demurrer and the Court be-
ing then Of the opinion that it was necessary to
q complete adjustment Of the various equities
involved, and to proper termination OF the
litigation that al account should be taken, or
missionels do state. settle. and report. an &C.
count, showing:
Is TIE amount of the liabilities Of every
kind existing against the Alexandria & Wash :
ington Railroad Company Oh the 10Th day OF
April, 1862
5d. The amount of liabilities or indebtedness
of the said Railroad Company aforesaid, OF dis
charged by Alexander Hay, by the Washing
ton, Alexandria and Georgetown Railroad Co.,
or other person, since said period.
3D. The amount Of 1noney expended or debts
incurred during the said period by Alexander
Hay, the Washington, Alexandria and George
town Railroad Company, or other person, in
building. repairing, equipping and operating
the said Railroad.
4th., The amounts received during the period
aforesaid, by the Washington, Alexandria and
Georgetown Railroad Co, from all sources,
and stating any further matter that said Com
missioner may deem pertinent or that either
party may require, und that the books and pa
pers of the Washington and Alexandria Rail
read Company, and Of the Washington a Lex
andria and Georgetown Railroad Comply. shall
be produced before the Commissioner taking
such accounts by any person having possession
Of the same. And that said Commissioner shall
make his report to the next term general or
spec,nl, J of this Court
This account was taken by the Commissioner
was duly returned in accordance with the sta
tute and the cause being regularly matured for
hearing at this term, was called by the Court
for trial.
,rhereupon, the defendants, Jos. Thornton
and Jos. DAWSON, who this day filed their an
swers, moved to continue the cause, represent
ing that neither the COMPLIMENTS in person or
by attorney, had made any motion for its hear
ing.
The Court, upon inquiry rs to the reason, WAS
then informed by the Counsel for the complain.
ants that an Injunction had been served upon
him and them, tnrbdding them from appearing
in this Court, aaappenrs from copy of the order
in the following words, to wit:
cory.
limited States Circuit Court, District of Virgin
i,,-S s.-Horatio r. Riddle, ct a., VS. james
$. French, ct al
ORDERED, This 25Lh February, 1867, that
James S. French. his agents attorneys, solci-
tory, aiders and abettors, and servants, be en-
joined and restrained until tho further orders of
this Court from using the corporate name or
seal of the Washington and Alexandria Rail
road Company or from authorizing any person
to use the same, or from pretending or assert
ing any right, title or claim to the franchises or
property Of the Washington, Alexandria md
Georgetown Railroad Company or from setting
up or ella ming or auth orizing any perso to set
UP or Claim that the dissolved corporation, for
merly known us the Washington and Alexnn-
dra Railroad Company, is a legal and existing
law or proceeding in equity for The ecovery Of
the possession of the franchises and route now
held by the Washington, Alexandria & George
town Railroad Company, or by persons claim.
ing by, through or under it. or from impeach-
ing the validity of the deed executed l4th April,
1862, by Joseph b. Stewart. trustee substituted
by order of The County Court Of Alexandria
county, IN lieu Of Walter LennoX, in favor Of
Alexander Hays, Joseph Thornton, and the
Washington, Alexandria and Georgetown Rail
road Company, which deed is duly recorded
among the land records in said AleXandria
county, or from selling or disposing of, or by
pothecating, or agreeing SD to do, any alleged
property Of, or interest OF capital stock in the
said dissolved corporation, called the Washing
ton und Alexandria Railroad Company, Or
from creating or undertaking to create or ac-
knowledge any obligation or contract against
or in respect to the same
And the question now presented is, shall The
Court under all the circumstances refrain from
hearing, and forbear to make any decree in the
cause?
The act Of Congress of March I'd, 1893, vide
Brightly's Digest which said act is now in full
force, provides that the Courts Of the United
States shall not grant writ Of Injunction to
stay proceedings in any Court Of State, and [
am now to decide whether the order Of the Uni
ted States Court does not indirectly effect that
which the law of Congress declares it shall not
do directly. For, if il be conceded, that the
United States Court can, by injunction, forbid
the parties litigant in the Courts OF the State
Va
thus enabling the defendants. upon their motion
to control the action Of the Court in such case
will it not be efectllal to stay proceedings in the
State Courts? That a United States Court can
not enjoin proceedings in a State Court has
been repeatedly settled. See Digs vs.. Wal
colt, 9TH Cranch, 179. A recognition Of the
same principle is to be found in Peck vs.. Jen-
ness, Eth Howard, 612.
Ia this case it appeared that an act Of Con.
eress had conferred on the Courts Of the United
States exclusive Jurisdiction Of all suits and pro
cesdings of bankruptcy, and had provided that
the act should not be held to impair or destroy
existing rights. liens, mortgages, &c, on the es
tate Of the bankrupt.
a District Court of the United States decided
hat its jurisdiction extended to administer the
entire estate Of the Bankrupt Court. and that
he liens on the property whether judicial OF,
must be asserted exclusively in that
court, and that all other jurisdiction had been
;usp pended,
The Court. in its opinion delivered by Justice
3rier, say: The District Court has exclusive
Jurisdiction of I'LL suits and proceedings in
But the suit pending before the
Court Of Common Pleas was not suit Of pro-
,eedng in bankruptcy; and although the plea
If bankruptcy was interposed by the defend