The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1881-04-08
Rock Island Illinois. FRIDAY. April s.. 1881.
REJECTED.
The Steamboat case at
st. Louis.
Federal Courts refuse to inter-
fere with State Courts.
tSt. Louis Republican. !

In the case of A M Hutchinson ct al.
VS. Charles Green and the Keokuk N I
Packet Company. on a motion for q pre-
llDlnary injunction. Judge McCrarv and
Treat rendered concurring opinions pester.
day. denying the motion.
After giving an analytical statement of
the plaintiffs bill, with the purport of
which the public Is familiar, Judge Trent
continued as follows:
Does not the foregoing analysis of the
bill, with its prayer for relief, show 10 ost
distinctly that this court is asked to enioin
the proceedings of a state court which has
custody OF the property in dispute and in
proceeding to determine the rights of the
several parties in interest? At present
the state court has custody, but it is
apprehended that it is about to turn over
the possession and management of said
property from its receiver to a duly quail
fed assignee under the state law over
whom it has full supervision, 1t is not
necessary to decide the bald question,
whether a state assignee who has given
bond, &c. 10 state court can beinterfere ed
with inn iajunction from this court, The
force OF decisions read from the United
States reports is fully appreciated, and the
clear distinctions observed between judg-
ments In federal courts against state assig.
nees, administrators, &c, and the modes of
enforcing said judgments. which, when
rendered, are against them in their rep
resentative capacity payable out of assets
in their handd.
Whatever may be the apparent doubt
arising from the cases cited, it seems clear
that the case before this court involves no
such difficulties, for it is disclosed in the
bill that its purpose in the state court
practically to direct what order it shall
make as to the future custody or control of
property now in the possession Of its
recelVer-or. in other words, that its
Judgment shall be restricted in a certain
way, SO that it cannot abjudge what to it
law and right may seem to demand,
An analysis of the many authorities
cited will show that in no well considered
case has y. S. court ever issued an in
junction, directly or indirectly. Except in
bankruptcy matters) to restrain proceed
lngs pending In state court; nor has it
respected any Injunction or other mode of
interference with its jurisdiction. There
has seldom arisen any conflict Of jurisdic-
tion since the organization of the i. s.
government, because both the federal and
the state courts have with rare exceptions
observed the obvious rule Of comfy, and
the federal courts have strictly complied
with the provisions of the act OF 1898.
prohibiting injunctious of the kind claimed
here
The embarrassmeDts under which par
ties may labor IT the court does not usurp
Jurisdiction. are far less than if conflicts of
Jurisdiction arise. 1t may be that great
loss and injury will result if the corpora
tion is not permitted to proceed with its
business. affecting the navigation of the
Upper Mississippi. and that, as urged, this
important enterprise may be wrecked to
the detriment of all parties in interest
unless this court interferes by injunction.
That argument cannot prevail against the
prohibition of the statute; nor is it seen
how the cooperation or plaintiffs would be
profted pending this litigation if the
assignee is enjoined from acting. 1t must
suffice that on the record it sufficiently ap-
pears that this court has no power to
grant the provisional ipj junction,
The opision of Judge McCrary covered
the same points. but more briefly.