Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1868-02-13

,hst adcmen, had been rendered "a 'aVol
Of The rclntor sgains; the county U ~. g.. Z
before the Injunction issued TO" ~ 4
court, and therefore the fedel.' .o"'' "a" j
+. first acquired jurisdiction u ~
~, rs inouirs for moment oil what /
~ s.Jer,l court had acquired jurisdc-
-, oton action OF assumpsi', IN which
n.rr,s Eivvs was plaintiff aud Jonnscn
sa,n,v vas defendant, and in which the
nlaintif recovered a judgment for his debt.
IN whst case was il the State court had iu-
ri.dictior' OF a bill in chancery, brought
BY the resident taxpayers of johnson coun-
~ against the Board u Supervisors Of that
county 10 enjoin them from levying tax 10
pay certain bonds. Neither party to the
suit IN the federal court was party 10 the
suit in the State court, or Was necessary
or proper party to it. The subjectmat,s
Of she suit In The federal osust was Vie e.
binary collection Of . debs ffoa Johnssn
county. The subject.mattsr Of The suit In
the State court Was the attempt Of the Board
Of SUPERVISOR 70 levy On illegal tax. The
} county Of johnson 10 . corporation capable
/, to sue and be sued. The supervisors are
, officers o! whom certain duties are required.
They are not identical, and cannot be sued
. Tor the same purpose.
II surpassss my ingenuity to sec how the |
Z suit 10 The federal eourt can be said to have |
: first obtained Jurisdiction Of the case in the
4 State court. The parties, plaintiff and de-
. PENDANT, are all different, and the subject
matter Of the suit is different and the re.iei
sought is different.
, .uch has been said in the course Of argu-
' ment by counsel of the incapscity Of
J. State court to enjoin the judgment Of . fed
l. eral court or to restrain or interfere with
. its process.
j, Nothing Of the kind is attempted, nor
10 any such power claimed by the State court
Is in the proceedings relied on ia tho return.
z, The Judgment Of the federal court 10 not
g mentioned or alluded to in the proceedings
~ in the State ooutt. Neither plaintiff or de-
be PENDANT in the federal court are made par
I'd ties 70 the suit in the State court. Nor 10
o. any decree rendered touching ito process or
N. designed TO interfere with il. All the ordi-
Of nary writs, and oil the ordinary powers Of
be Q court 10 . judgment at law, may b ex-
nj haustsd by the federal court without the
10 possibility Of any collision between that
N. court and the decree Of the State court II
mt 10 only when the plaintiff in the federal
a.. court, having exhausted his remedy in that
Il. action, brings new suit, With new doiend-
ants, praying for new and different relief,
sal that the courts eoms into collision.
Of II Is said in answer 10 al this that the
HE writ Of mandamus as applied for in this ease
10 10 no new action, but 10 the ordinary proessa
I'd by which the court snforess IL judgment
On. and that this 10 especially 90 in the lows
leh circuit, because such 10 the ease in the lows
on State courts.
&c. The Revision Of 1860, Of the Iowa stat
the utes, must determine the soundness OF shii
~. nencna;tion Ia Nha c0mrtn 0f tina
State are concerned. Chapter 1853 10 bead
The Cd in capitals, "Action Of mandamus" 3,
ued 76l describes tho cases to which the actor
= 10 10 applicable In the lauguage used BY con
ne mon law writers. 3,762 says the plain
and It'd shall state his claim and facts suf{icisu
cult 10 constitute csuss for such claim. 50,
uyss 1856 The plsadngs and other proceeding
lder in any action in which . mandamus !
i ed claimed shall be the same In oil respects, .
no nearly % may be. ~ in m ordinary actio
rms for the recovery Of damages. 4,lsl say
reg that when the action Of mandamus 10 BY
was private person there may be joined there
rye, with tho injunction Of chapter l56,
and the action shall be BY ordinary proceed
rcuit ings.
the ! believe have quoted substantially .
eme that there is on this subject in the statute
,urt, Il Icwa, and these govern the practice
II
that to speak Of the actual practice 10 thos
+. courts. 1t is clear that il 10 not
rom mere anciliary writ, but is in oil cases
e as separate action, with peadings as In othe
: If actions, and Judgment thereon. How the
sub can it be said that this 10 one Of tho ord
hem nary powers Of the court, incident to. an
egai consequent upon. the judgment Of II
con- court, in an action of debt or assumsit?
exc But the statutes Of Iowa in this respe'
then have not changed the common law. BacoI
the in his Abridgsment, says, that ''snce tn
lrts. statute, % Ann, chap. 90 . mandamus
:ese, in the nature Of an action, special replic
od, tons and peadings therein being admitted
mon and costs awarded 10 either side that pr
ivts. vai,s."
70 Of In the case Of Kendall 70. Stokes, q
esne Peters, 6l5,) this court held that "the pr
ut in ceeding on mandamus, 10 . ease within q
udg meaning Of the act Of Congress.
vhen Il is an action, or suit brought in . court
'scd justice, asserting . right. AID 10 prosecute
sued according to the forms of judicial procee
such inge." And in another case between Il
~ to same parties, reported Howard, 100, Il
lear, court says, it ia now regarded - an actio
writ, by the party on whose relation it is granite
reea- and holds that the former action Of rpand
law. mus 10 = bar to an action Of assumsit for Il
law, same cause. So in Kentucky Va. Denise
eL0 t-f ~ IL 10 suiu, mhuudm "
, the in modern practice, is nothing more chs
and an action At Law between the parties"
date Passing frcn these conclusive evidence
Of what this very court considers TO be Il
aud nature OF the writ of mandamus, and VII
initial the statutes Of Iowa appealed to in Il
ages opinion VI the majority as the basis Of the
eases Judgment intend il to be, il We look 20 Il
atss. essential nature Of the present proceedir
encs We shall still be more convinced that it 10
over new suit in every sense Of the word
curt have already shown that the parties are di
% to fsrsnt. The purpose of II 10 to enforce Il
d il levy Of tax; IN object which e0uld nsv,
fed b obtained. and which 10 mot within u
sec seeps Of On action Of assumsit. The parti,
hich seeking the writ in the information whie
over they fled in the present case, did not 70,
10 70 their claim % the statement that they had
id it judgment against corporation which the
lsslf could not enforce BY execution, but they 3
end back Of that and recits the issue Of Ii
mus bonds, aud the vote Of the tax to pay thei
the BY the county, and pray for this writ TO q
usts force specifically that contract. And in Ii
ncy opinion just dcliysred 10 10 dsslAred o
. in The ebjsst Of che writ - sufeeoo ~ iudl
nth usne Of he court, By isvyine He tar, ID
'ens prsrjded in the contract"
veil So that it 10 clear, that beth The plaintiff
an in his information, and the court in its epin
has ION, consider the writ in this case % 10 th
the nature Of bill in ehaneery. enforce spscii
lrts ic performance Of . contract.
Asd that 10 precisely what il 10. Was
der eses heard that snoh bill y oeroly aacil
sss larry 70 > judgsmsat . lav, and b only uses
lem for the purpose Of enforcing judgment To-
the damages, for failing to pay note or bend
NJ, The Obligation Of the supervisors to levi
full tsis taz il il exist ct ALL 10 % perfect 10 70
l3ta | Rnfd IN honda nm wliah thea Il m I'D :.