Court Opinion

ID: 9651578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:27:43.741045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:36.328272
License: Public Domain

STONE, Circuit Judge
(concurring). I concur in the opinion of Judge KENYON, and wish to add only emphasis to one or two matters covered therein.
The bill does not deal with one legal transaction, but with many. These transactions are of different characters; they differ as to legal stages and conditions; they do, or may, differ as to many material facts. As to the suits wMch have gone to judgment, it is obvious that appellant has presented and litigated the very questions here sought to be raised. These questions are now before the Supreme Court of Wyoming and will be before this court if appellant has carried out its expressed intention of bringing here for ■ review the judgments in the two cases determined against it in the federal District Court. Where a party has thus had ample opportunity to present, and has presented, his contention to other courts of competent jurisdiction, it would lead only to confusion and conflict to permit these same contentions between the same parties and concerning these same matters to be again litigated. To grant the relief asked concerning the title to the land sold under execution would be to afford appellant the benefit of a supersedeas in litigation in the state court, where it had an opportunity to secure such and had not done so, and would be unjustifiable interference with the orderly processes of the state court. Other of the transactions are based on separate promissory notes given, and dealt with at different times.
I can see no basis for legally combining them in a single bill in equity or in one petition at law. If these various matters had been lodged as different actions at law, there might be reasons of practical convenience to consolidate such actions for trial. If a single action at law for damages had been filed, and these various transactions treated as separate items of damage, there might possibly have been stated some common basis or ground for recovery. However, neither of these things was done, so the court could not hear the cause in equity, nor transfer it to the law side of the court.