The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-09-03

proceeding, actual manual possession OF
the res * essential TO the 1urlsolc1lch-
This proposition Is elementary ana as IN
GispuTshle as the proposition that a man
cannot grasp things which are beyond his
reach. Nenifestiy IN fun recognition or
this essential. the parties attempted 20
create jurisdiction by avering II the Dill
and admitting in the answer as TACT.
that part CT the Northern Pacific railroa1
IS situated within the Eastern district or
the state Of Wisconsin. and we are now
told that this fact having been so avere1.
admitted and established by the decree or
the court based thereon IL must for all
purposes OF litigation between these par
ties. and IN all jurisdictions. be taken as
true, although in fact untrue.
Parties Cannot Create Jurisdiction.
In refutation % this claim. deem Il
proper 10 say that the Northern Pacific
railroad Is a national highway. provided
for by national laws and its location Is
as much within the judicial knowledge OF
the court as any other geographical fact
To such facts, which are not dependent
for evidence OF their existence upon the
testimony OF witnesses, or the preservation
Of documents, the law OF estoppel cannot
be properly applied. II would certainly
be an absurdity for any court in treating
with important rights 10 be controlled by
record IN which the parties alleged and
admitted, and the court found as a fact.
the state Of Oregon 70 be situated within
the corporate limits Of the city OF Tacoma
The facts shown by the record, and within
the knowledge of the court limit the power
OF the court at Milwaukee in the granting
OF relief prayed Tor by the original credit
crs bill or Winston and others, 10 the APP
pointrnent Of receivers, for the purpose OF
taking into manual possession and under
control, such assets OF the defendant cor
poTation as were movable and detached
from the railroad.
The railroad and real estate OF the defan-
dant, being imnovahle. could not he
brought within the Jurisdiction of that
court Neither could jurisdiction over the
same be acquired By taking possession of
such assets as money, bonds and other
securities, or even railroad materials or
supplies, or railroad cars while migrating
over other lines Custody of things nova
BE, and not Indispensable TO the operation
OF the railroad. will not draw jurisdiction
In rem over L railroad situated beyond the
jurisdiction. any more than il VIII bring
The road Itself within the boundaries OF
jurisdiction.
The Rule of Comfy.
The rule which recognizes as the court
OF primary jurisdiction, the one which is
first in point OF time in acquiring custody
OF one part of the line of railroad extend
lns INTO more than one judicial district,
ana requires other courts to defer 10 the
court OF primary jurisdiction as the CO Irt
or paramount authority in managing the
operations of railroad so situated, arises
frcm necessity, and is a rule of reason.
An accurate statement of the rule itself
excludes the idea that any court can be
a court OF primary jurisdiction, or have
supremacy in the control of a railroad
sitt attd outside Of the boundaries OF its
jurisdiction. Necessity, which is The
mother OF the rule, is absent in such 4
case.
The liabilities, litigation and conten-
ions arising from the practical operation
or railroad, affecting the employees and
patrons Of the road, and the community
served by IL should, according to Ameri-
can Ideas OF local selfgoyernment, be ad-
Justed in forum having jurisdiction at
the place where the transactions occur
and the subject matter is situated. Judi
cial process, TO be of any use III protect
ing an estate and the interests of its own
erS, must be potential at the place where
the estate is. These considerations re-
quire each court OF the United States TO
exercise within its dictrict, the powers
conferred upon it by law for the benefit
or the public and of each individual having
rights to be protected, untrammelled and
not controlled except by law and by tri-
DunaIS having paramount Jurisdiction 10
revise its judgments. To defer TO the
judgment or court of coordinate juriS-
diction in the management of a railroad,
Is 1uStifable upon the ground that with
out head to control. it is impossible to
operate a continuous line OF railroad, and
il would be an unSeeHly spectacle for
courts 10 seize the different ends of a
line and engage in tug-of-war for mas
terry over it, and there is no other reason
for what is termed the rule of comfy in
such matters.
An Illustration From the Great Strike.
When the reason of the rule is consid-
cred, ii must be admitted as a plain prep
ostion that a railroad extending through
different judicial districts, upon going in
10 the hands of receivers, must be con-
trolled by the court OF one or the other of
the districts into which it extends, and a
distant court whose process is without
virtue where a railroad IS situated and its
business transactions take place. is in
competent to manage its affairs. The ut
ter want of power 10 protect this railroad
or conserve the interests Of the people
whose capital is invested therein, is
shown in a practical way by the fact that
when the property was menaced by the
so-caued Industrial Army, and after
wards by sympathizers with the \. 4. L.
strike OF 1924. the court sitting al Mil
waukee was not called upon TO vindicate
its authority, but the courts having juTis-
diction within the territory traversed by
the road, were required TO exert their
power, and did so in numerous instances.
As further test. let II be supposed that
the courts of the Eighth and Ninth cir
cults should assume full control of all the
Northern Pacific property within the ter
ritory over which their jurisdiction eN-
tends. independent of the proceedings
pending in the courts of the Seventh cir
cult. and then inquire what would be the
consequences To the railroad or its bust
ness Would there he a collision OF the
forces emanatinS from the different
courts Would any part Of the property
necessary TO the operation of the railroad
In its entirety BE- left unprotected? Would
the courts acting thus inharmoniously
present the unseemiy spectacle OF grasp
ing the ends Of a single line and engaging
in a tug-of-war? To answer these ques-
tons correctly IS but 10 assert that ncces-
sity for the joint and harmonious action
OF the circuit court for the Eastern dis
tr.ct of Wiscous.f. with the courts or the
| Eighth and Ninth circuits. in order 10
maintain the integrity and autonomy OF
the Northern Pacific railroad, Is not nee
eSSary.
The Madison Court and the stub Line.
The fact that the Northern Pacific Rail
road Company owns stub line extend
irg from West Superior 10 Ashland. in
the Western district Of Wisconsin, IS un-
| important for the reason that The circuit
court FOR the Western district of VISION
sin has never assumed supremacy as
court Of primary jurisdiction in the admin
istraticn Of Northern Pacific railroad az
fairs and so far as the record before us
discloses the proceedings IN that court
were not in fact commenced anterior 10
the proceedings in this court.