The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-07-08
AN IMPORTANT LEGAL POINT.
A Decision Touching the Jurisdiction
of State and Federal Courts.


From the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph.
Sternberg & Loewenherz we're dry goods
merchants in Columbus, having a stock
aggregating $500, GOO in value On Nav %
they executed mortgages on this stock to
H. B. Clahin 81 Co. of New York, the
Merchants and Mechanics Bank of Column
bus, and certain friends, the total aggre-
eating 900.
On June | the bank and Clafin fore
closed their mortgages under the statutory
form provided in Georgia, that is by filing
an affidavit in the clerks office of the
superior court of Muscogee county, and
having an execution issued thereon. The
sheriff of Muscogee county levied these
mortgages and seized the entire stock, and
the other mortgage creditors also placed
their claims in the sheriff's hands. On June
II left, Weller Il Co., Durham, Bukley &
Co., and other unsecured creditors aggrega-
ting $50, 900 or $50, 900 filed their bills in the
federal court in the Southern district of
Georgia, praying an injunction against
the sheriff, the mortgage and Sternberg
& Loewnherz and asking the appointment
of a receiver to take charge of the entire
stock. The stock Of goods had been adver-
tised by the sheriff to be sold the first Tues
day in July to satisfy the mortgages Judge
Speer granted a temporary injunction and
set July 3 for the hearing of the cause.
The defendants filed demurrer to the bill,
and among other points claimed that the
federal court had no jurisdiction on the
ground that the state court had already
assumed Jurisdiction, and, therefore, that
the bill was in direct contradiction
of the provision of the revised statute of
the United States, in which it is enacted,
that the writ of injunction shall not be
granted by any court OF the United States,
to-stay proceedings in any court of a state,
except in cases where such injunctions may
be authorized by any law relating to pro-
ceedings in bankruptcy. The question
squarely made by the demurrer was whether
or not the foreclosure of a chattel mort
gage in a state court, under the statutory
form, and levy thereof by the sheriff, was
such legal proceeding as would bring it
under the revised statute
The Judge equested full briefs and elabo-
rate arguments on the point stating that it
was new and very important one and he
desired a full hearing thereon. Wednesday
and yesterday were consumed in the argu-
ment Of this point, and the court rendered
a decision sustaining the demurrer on
that point, stating in in substance that the
question raised was one requiring the grav-
est consideration. That under the system
of our courts, both state and federal they
we're SO related to each other, and their
machinery so nicely balanced that he
NOuAd 10 a ASAyAASl JAOEC W liz NOu4u III my
them into conflict when it could possibly be
avoided.
That the federal courts, after all, in one
sense of the word are but state courts in
the states in which they are held. Mr.. JUS
tice Bradley has said this The object of
both the state and federal courts is to see
that the laws are properly administered.
The supreme court of Georgia, in the au-
thorites which have been presented, seem
to have treated the foreclosure of a chattel
mortgage under the statutory form as a
judicial proceeding, and out of respect to
that court he would so hold in this case
That the court whose jurisdiction he was
asked to deny was not an alien or foreign
court If it were perhaps mis- decision
might be otherwise. He would. therefore,
on this point of the demurrer, decline to
enioin the sheriff