The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-25
Attorney General Declines 10
 Appear in the Federal Court.

sues only to the parties before the court, and not to the court, Is no eva sion of the difficulties that are the nec- essary result of an attempt to exercise that power over a party who is liti- gant in another and independent for um.' Peck vs. Jenness, How. GU. S.) 624: IF l.. Ed, S46. Where one of two courts of coordinate Jurisdiction and powers has obtained Jurisdiction of cause. it should retain 1t until finally disposed of; and although both courts may have authority to grant injunc- tions, yet If one tribunal properly hav- Ing cognizance of the case, has exer- cised its Jurisdiction, the other could refuse to interfere. Nor will the prosecution of a suit in one court be enjoined by a court of coordinate Jurisdiction. when the former tribunal may afford relief High on Injunc- tions (3d Ed.) Sec. I5. While, courts of equity as is thus shown, are averse to permitting their Jurisdiction, when it has once attached, to be usurped by other tribunals, they will not, upon the other hand, interfere with proceedings In other courts of competent jurisdic- ton which have first acquired control over the subject-matter of the contro- versy.' Gray v. South & North RR. Co, 4s So. Rep. D. Sso."
 Another Case Quoted.
 In that case the court was reversed and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction solely and only because the Chancery Court of Birmingham had first obtained Jurisdiction of the sub- ject-matter.
 Now to show that the Federal Court and the courts of the State of Alabama are in thorough accord with this prop osition, I cite your honor to the case of sharon vs. Terry, 36 Fed. 3s7. In that case, if recollect aright sharon filed a bill setting up that Mrs. Terry had paper which purported to be a contractuai marriage between herself and sharon under the law of Louisiana, that she was, therefore, the lawful wife of Sharon. Sharon was man Of largo wealth, and he filed a bill urging that this paper in the possession of Mrs. Terry was fraudulent and forgery and that it might and would, after his death, be used for the purpose of niak- Ing a large claim against his estate The Federal Court on the filing of Sha- ron's bill took Jurisdiction, and while the case there pending, Mrs. Terry f1led proceedings in the State Court to establish this paper as valid con tract of marriage between herself and sharon and to obtain divorce from sharon and a division of the estate &C., cumulated during the marriage under the civil law. The cause proceeded in the State Court to a final judgment in favor of Mrs, Terry establishing thls paper as a valid contract between Sha- ron and Mrs. Terry, establishing lawful marriage between the two al- lowing her the sum of $L50O alimony and $5,000 a month for support An appeal was taken from this judgment to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and the judgment was affirmed after modifying 1t so as to reduce the amount of permanent alimony and to reduce the amount of the monthly alimony $500. So that there the State Court had not only undertaken to take 1u- risdiction of a cause which was then bending and wholly undetermined in | the Federal Court, but that cause with sharon defending had gone to Judg- | ment in the lower court, had been ap- | pealed to the Supreme Court and mad been theEe affirmed. Thereupn sup plemental bill was filed in the Federal | Court by Sharon enjoining the enforce ment of this judgment and to annul | and this case reviewing authorities outside of those reviewed in the Gray l case quotes page after page or de- | cisions in the Federal Courts, and In l the courts of the several States hold l ing, as does the Gray case, that when ever two courts have coordinate Ju- risdiction of the same subject-matter the one that takes Jurisdiction of the matter first has the exclusive control of it and that no other court can by undertaking to take 1 iurgsdiction of that matter affect or | control the enforcement of the nnal l judgment of the court having orlsinai jurisdiction. That opinion was dellV- cred by MT. Justice Field of the Su-
 nreme Court then acting as circuit | fudge. So that we have the general principle as well and as thoroughly and as emphatically established in the l State of Alabama as in the Feoeral de | cisions and as fully established In the Federal decisions as by the supreme | Court of Alabama in it's very lates' enunciation on that subject.
 The Court--I am not certain that read the Ray case.
 Mi. smith, did not mention any Ray case. The Gray case and Sharon vs. Terry are the only two l have men
 tioned.
 The same doctrine Is announced 1T
 French vs. Hayes, 22 Wall. 25O Dletzsch vs. Huydekoper, 1O3 U. 5. 494
 and Julian vs. Central Trust Co, 19'
 U. S., 112.
 Now this court has taken jurisdic
 tion of the subject-matter of the val
 idity of the rates which were pre-
 scribed by the several statutes of Ala
 bama These rates were established
 by the several statutes involved in thl
 litigation and by the very terms O
 the statute itself 1t is provided tha
 the validity of these rates or the req
 sonableness or fairness of the rate
 as stated in the statute may be con
 tested by filing bill in any court, an!
 chancery court or the circuit court il
 the County of Montgomery or in am
 other court of like or concurrent Juris
 diction, and 1t further provides tha
 when such bill Is filed the rates ma! be suspended pending the litigation and it requires the parties to give bont
 to pay certain sums to the parties wh' may be injured by such suspension
 during litigation. .:~
 Now this bill Is filed to contest thes rates on several grounds
 1. Because they are unconstitutiona
 and void under the constitution of tn
 United States;
 9 Upon the ground thar they ar unfair and unreasonable; that beinI
 the test provided for by the statute it
 self
 Grounds of Contest.
 Now the controversy here is as t
 whether or not after this court ha
 taken jurisdiction of the subjeCt-mat
 ter of the validity of these rates, afte
 it has made an order suspending thes
 rates until it can determine these ques tions and after it has required thes , complainants to give bond to refun
 any overcharge which may be mad
 pending the litigation, should it here
 after he determined that the rates ar