Court Opinion

ID: 9650802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:52:22.685493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:26.152830
License: Public Domain

FOSTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As the policies contain a noncontestable clause, have the same beneficiary, and have matured, there could be question as to the right of plaintiff to bring one suit in equity to cancel both on the ground of fraud. New York Life Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, supra. It is well settled that the pendency of a suit in a state court, involving the same cause of action, between identical parties, is not a bar to a similar proceeding in a federal court. Stanton v. Embry, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. Ed. 983; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L. Ed. 762. Therefore the pendency of a suit in the state court does not affect the question of jurisdiction.
The remedy at law must be as complete, as practical, and as efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity, to bar jurisdiction in equity. And it must be a remedy in the same court, not in some court other than the federal court. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 S. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819. If the suit pending in the state court were removable, a different question would be presented.
I think the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the bill, although it may be that, before a judgment is rendered, the suit in the state court may have become res adjudieata. It is not so now, and jurisdiction depends upon the facts existing at the time the suit is brought, and not on what the future may develop.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.