The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-18
Ii Davis vs Los Angeles. iss U. S..

n Davis vs. Los Angeles. iss U. s.. Supra, 1t said:
 "Tt would seem if there were turis- diction in a court of equity to enjoin the invasion of property rights. through | the instrumentality of an unconstitu- tional law. that the Jurisdiction could Lot be busted by the fact that the State had chosen to assert it's power to en- force the statute by indictment or other criminal proceeding. Sprfnghead Spin ming Co. ys, Riley. L.. K., 6 Eq.. 55l, s5s
 'In the case thus cited py the Supreme Court as authority for the statement 1t made on this point, the vice -chancelior | said:
 ""The jurisdiction of this court is to | protect property. and it will interfere by injunction to stay any proceedings, whether connected with crime or not, which go to the immediate, or tend to the ultimate destruction of property, or make it less valuable for use and oe- cnpation'
 Tn Dobbins vs. Los Angeles, 1s5 U. S, | 241, the Supreme Court declares: it is well settled that where property rights will be destroyed. unlawful interfer. void law or ordinance, may be reached | and controlled by the decree of court | of equity
 "In Prout vs. starr. '1ss U. s., s44. the same question is discussed fin reia. ton to the power of the court of eqnfty to restrain the Attorney General of a State, by injunction of the United States Court from enforcing the crim- inal laws of the State and notwith- standing the Attorney Generals protest. he was enjoined from enforcing the criminal laws of the State, because tho Supreme Court was of the opinion that the statute was void. That case was the sequel of the case of Smyth against Ames, in which the Supreme Court af- firmed judgment of the Circuit Court which in limihe enJoined the execution of the criminal laws Of Nebraska, re- garding the violation Of rates prescrib- ed by it's statute.
 The case of Prout vs. Starr cites Fitts against McGehee. 172 U. S., 5t6, and departs from 1t. Mir Justice Harlan concurring in the latter case; though not In all the reasoning of the opin- ion, and his concurring opinion is in effect a quasi dissent from a decision which was really a material departure from what was Cecided in Fitts against McGhee.
 The Supreme Court, in Prout against Starr, Supra. speaks of the right of the Circuit Court to prevent the trans fer of the very matter brought for judgment in a Federal Court to the State Court a course which the Su- prerne Court said might bring on con- fict between the courts and create the confusion 50 deprecated by this court. Peck vs. Jenness. IS How. 265. Here, as there, the court had acquired juris- diction to decide the property right in- volved. the right to make the charge, on the filing of the bill. and it's juris- diction could not be defeated or im- pared by the institution of subsequent proceedings, whether civil or criminal, involving the same legal questions fin the State court? Harkrader vs. wad- ley, 172 U. S., 14S.
 Can't Transfer Decision.
 Aside from this, no court has been more pronounced than the Supreme Court of the United States, in holding that when the very same right was before State or United States Court for adjudication, that no other court,