Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-05-03
THE COURT OF RECORDS.
SYNOPSIS or DECISIONS RENDERED
ny riE SUPREME COUNT.
John W. sfnytsn, chief Jurticet H..
IT, Gains aud n. j. Brown, As
socinte JusticcsJ G. 5.
Morse, Clerk.

The suit was brought by the wife and
minor child OF John NJ. Gay to recover
from John c. Brown. MS receiver for
the Texas and Pacific railway COM
pany. damages for his death. When
suit was brought Brown was operating
the Texas and Pacific railway as re-
cciyer under appointment made by
the circuit court OF the United States
sitting for the eastern district OF the
state of Louisiana. but pending the
litigation the receiver was discharged.
After the discharge. with pleadings
setting up that fact. judgment was
rendered against tie receiver. which
was reversed on appeal Gs Texas 4iD.
After this the pleadings were amended
ana the Texas and Pacifc railway COM
pauy was made party, but this did
not occur until more than one year
after the death OF Gay. The plcadingg
show facts which would have entitled
Gay 70 an action against the COM
pany for the Injury had he lived, but
as It has been held that actions for
injuries resulting IN death could not
be maintained against receivers under
the law. Us II was when the death In
question occurred, questions have been
certified 10 this court under pleadinEa
and judgment against the company
which make them pertinent:
l. Did the circuit court Of the United
States for the district OF Louisiana
have Jurisdiction to take possession
through u receiver OF that part OF the
road situated Ia the state and northern
district Of Texas?
by the terms NJ the laws by virtue
OF which the Texas and Pacific railway
company exists II IN evident that the
eastern terminus OF that road Ia at the
eastern line Of the state OF Texas
nnd that no part OF II IN IN the state
or Louisiana. Where the terminus OF
n railway ia, under the terms OF It's
fact and In Law, and the fact TINT the
railway company may be authorized
TO construct and operate railway
beyond that terminus cannot make the
two one. A case IS not presented I'm
which one railway under It's charter
extends through or into two or more
states, la ono OF which a receiver over
the entire road was appointed by a
court sitting In state In which mart
Of The road was; but the case IN one
where u receiver was appointed by
United states circuit court. sitting In
me eastern district Of tho state OF
Louisiana to take pOHsesHion OF. on
crate ana control railway, no part
OF which was IN the state OF Louis.
lana. Jurisdiction must depend on the
law creating the court and prescribing
It's powers, and n q court attempts
20 exercise power not thus conferred
Us Judgments and DEGREES are not
binding even upon parties, and may
be declared iuorerativc by any other
trihunal In which erect " sought to
be given to them. The Importance OF
avoiding conflict between the courts
OF me United States and the state
courts cannot be ovcrcsumatcd; but
such harmony M should exist between
mem VIII be most surely preserved
" stllct regard by ench for Its own
jurisdiction be ohsei we'd. for usurpation
pl power ny either Will necessarily
I'VE w cphii,t'
Where II IL clear that either has net
ca without lawful power. tho other
Mhsn called upon to ndJudlcate the
tlgnts or ntigants cannot refuse To
NUKE inquiry evcn rs TO jurisdiction
pt lhc other, when this becomes uecCt-
80 W ueterlnlhotlon OF question
pelore " without Hurrendcring power
Conferred upon them for the preservn-
non or the rights Of liugnnts The in
Wnunn ot congress-. MS n general rule
70 unit the Jurisdiction OF circuit courts
tu persons and things within the ais.
ulct IN which the court slts MS well
as To restrict their process. whether
original or final 10 the same terrltorv
~ nHhlfehted by macy statutes. Cir.
CUT courts having only such Iuridlctinn
~ eonNreHs has conferred upon them.
these statutes bcnr evidence OF a broad
t.Syooghllloh ny congress not only OF
mo improperly ~ permitting the nd.
ludlcation Of rights To or I'm referencs
to property situated In one state Nv y
court sitting IN another. but also OF the
pi"prlcty VI having the rlghts NJ oil
l1ehH nuludlcnted by courts Sitting In
me states of which they are citizens or
inhabitants, A court cannot cnnfer
upon'n receiver power outside Of Tho
territory over which II has iuriadictinn.
Tor us process cannot be effective he
yond that, unless authorized hv s,at,,t,
No. teneh 10 other territory within tho
unit OF the country Ia which the court
nelongs' where the process OF a court
uunnot 20 and be entitled to enforce.
mcnt mud respect Its officials canno,
n nHNe power. II the Texas and Pacific
common ownership. extended int tba
district In which the circuit raurt am.
pointing the receiver has iurlsd,c,lar
we do not see that under the ncts -
congress II would have iurls,iirflnr a.
appoint n receiver and through Mn, ~
tnke Possession OF that mart az tha itr,,
sllunted In Texas, even II the decisinr
IN Muller VS., Davis lQ4 II = IN -
correct under the facts of fbnt co.o,
ior mat decision recognizes thc la,,, y,
% mat the court could not soma H.
pIvvess INTO that other state nor car d,
sewer possession OF land I'm nnother
jurisdiction" The statute now In So,
~ ms state declares: III propsrt,.
l.a... \.