The Washington times., 1902-03-04
Supreme Court Reverses De-
ciSion of Kansas Tribunal.
A MINORITY DISSENT
Court Divided on the Question of the
Supremacy of Federal or State
Statutes or Judicial Practice-Import-
ant Ruling.

A division of the Supreme Court upon
the old question of the supremacy OF
Federal or State statutes or judicial prac-
tiee, when they come in conflict, was
sharply emphasized in the court yester-
day in passing upon the case OF A j. Tul-
lock VS.. Joab Mulvane, coming from the
Supreme Court of Kansas.
The litigation originally grew out of a
suit to enforce the specific performance
of a contract to sell certain water works,
but reached the Supreme Court upon the
question whether or not a bond in an in
junction case in the Federal courts in
Kansas could be made to include liability
for attorneys fees.
The Case.
Suit on the bond was brought in the
State courts while the case in the Fed
eral court was still undisposed of, and
judgment entered for about $40, 900 in ia
vor of attorneys in the case. The Supreme
Court of the State affirmed this Judgment
over the contention of the makers of the
bond that under the rules governing
equity cases promulgated by the Supreme
Court by the authority of an act of Con-
gress immunity was granted them from
liability for attorneys fees, and that this
defence presented Federal question.
Mr.. Justice White. the organ of the
court, said that the bond in question was
a bond executed in and by virtue of an
authority exercised under the United
States" This being the case the conclu-
sion cannot be escaped, he continued. that
what the defence set up was the asser-
tion of an immunity from liability. de-
pending on an authority exercised under
the United States, and therefore neces-
sarily involved the decision of a Federal
question.
II II be decided that a bond given in
Federal court of equity on the granting
OF an Injunction was not to be construed
with reference TO the rules of law appli-
cable to such bonds in such courts, Justice
White said, then there could be no general
rule by which to determine the liability
Of the obligors upon the bond.
Kansas Court at Fault.
The Federal question presented was the
correctness Of the decision Of the Kansas
court awarding the amount of fees in en-
forcing the bond II was not. Justice White
said. That was decided in Bien VS.. Heath
when Chief Justice Taney stated that the
local law could not be applied in constru-
ing and enforcing and Injunction bond |
given in a court OF the United States. The |
Judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court |
was therefore reversed and the case re-
manded.
To this doctrine a vigorous dissent was
by Mr.. Justice Harlan, for him
self, the Chief Justice, and Justice Brown.
He said the bond was in the ordinary
form, was in the nature of a contract. and
The liability Of the obligors depended
not on the Federal Constitution or Con-
gressional act, but on the proper inter-
Dretation of the bond itself; being an
contract, actionabie in any
State court when service upon the sure
les could be had, the Interpretation of
he form applied.
That the bond was given in a Federal
,ourt Justice Harlan said, where diff
erent rule Of Interpretation obtained, had
.or been deemed to affect the State court