Case Name: Lake Bistenbau Lumber Company, Limited, vs. J. B. Mimms, Sheriff; Lane & Bodley Co., Intervenors
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-05-10
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 1283
Docket Number: No. 12,367
Parties: Lake Bistenbau Lumber Company, Limited, vs. J. B. Mimms, Sheriff; Lane & Bodley Co., Intervenors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 1283–1294

Head Matter:
No. 12,367.
Lake Bistenbau Lumber Company, Limited, vs. J. B. Mimms, Sheriff; Lane & Bodley Co., Intervenors.
When the State court has acquired jurisdiction in a case, entered judgment, and is proceeding to its enforcement, the appointment of a receiver by United States Court to the defendant corporation can not divest the jurisdiction of the State court and stay the execution issued to enforce the judgment.
Nicholls, C. J., 07i Rehearing. — It is too clear for argument that the seizing creditors under this seizure can not be forcedly referred to the Circuit Court of the United States for the adjudication of their rights by reason of the fact that subsequently to the seizure, plaintiffs in injunction already in the State court went into the hands of receivers appointed by the United States Court.
“ Appellants -wlio successfully resisted a motion made by tlie appellees in the lower court for a new trial based on the ground that the judgment was contrary to the law and the evidence, can not, when they themselves appeal from the judgment and succeed in having the judgment reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, throw the costs of appeal on the appellees.” (Oteri vs. Oteri, 37 An. 76.)
A PPEAL from the Second. Judicial District Court for the Parish of Webster. Watkins, J.
Leonard & Randolph and L. K. Watkins for Plaintiffs, Appellants.
L. K. Watkins for A. Goodwill, for Surety on Injunction Bond, Appellant.
Wise & Herndon for Intervenors, Appellees.
Argued and submitted January 21, 1897.
Opinion handed down February 1, 1897.
Rehearing granted March 29, 1897.
Submitted on rehearing on briefs April 26, 1897.
Opinion handed down May 10, 1897.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McEnery, J.
The Lane & Bodley Company, intervenors, mortgage creditors of H. S. Mathews, obtained judgment against him. Execution issued on this judgment and the mortgaged property was •seized. ,
The plaintiff company enjoined the seizure. Lane & Bodley filed an intervention and third opposition. The sheriff filed the usual answer in such eases.
After the seizure the Federal Court appointed a receiver for the Lake Bisteneau Lumber Company. The receiver filed an exception of no cause of action to the opposition, which was overruled. The receiver resigned. Others were appointed by the court, who filed .an exception to the jurisdiction of the court, because of the pending receivership in the United States-Court. There was judgment sustaining this motion.
All parties appealed.
It is urged by the Lane & Bodley Company that the judgment was not that which was rendered by the District Judge, and that the attorney who prepared it for the judge's signature was in error. The record seems to indicate that such is the case. We have briefly alluded to such portions of the pleadings as will show the progress of the case leading to the motion to dismiss and the judgment thereon.
The State court had first acquired jurisdiction of the case. It is a universal rule that when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction of the same subject matter, the court which first obtains jurisdiction and possession of the res retains it to the end of the controversy, to the exclusion of the others. High on Receivers, Sec. 50; Hagan vs. Lucas, 10 Peters, 400; Peale vs. Phipps, 14 Howard, 368; Geilinger vs. Philippi, 133 U. S. 247.
" The leading general principle as to courts of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction is that whichever court of those having such jurisdiction first acquires possession of a cause will retain it throughout." American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Vol. 12, p. 292, note; Ober vs. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199; Barkdull vs. Herwig, 30 An. 618.
This jurisdiction extends to the execution of the judgment rendered. Hewes vs. Carr, 10 Bush (Ky.), 431.
The fact of the appointment of receiver to the plaintiff corporation by the United States Court, could not divest the jurisdiction acquired by the State court. It could not operate as a stay of the execution issued by the State court in the execution of its judgment. Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. 2, paragraph 950, 13th Edition; 59 Ala. 211; 8 Cal. 26; Id. 66.
The judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed, and it is ordered that the case be reinstated on the docket of the lower court as it existed before said judgment, to be proceeded with in due course of law. . The plaintiffs to pay costs of appeal.