285 F. 761 | E.D. Ky. | 1921
This cause is before me on defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The first thing to be taken note of is the character of relief which is sought as to such law judgment. In the brief just filed on behalf of plaintiff, the position taken is that the relief sought is an injunction against the enforcement of such judgment. It is conceded that, if the relief sought is to have the judgment vacated and set aside, plaintiff is not entitled to such relief, and that on the ground that it has come too late. A judgment at law can only be vacated or set aside under the provisions of the Code of Practice of Kentucky in relation thereto, and those provisions prescribe a limit in which such right can be exercised, and that limit had expired when this bill was filed. This, however, is not the only ground upon which plaintiff is not entitled to such relief. It is not entitled to it because the ground upon rvhich relief is sought against the judgment is not one of the grounds specified in such Code provisions upon which judgment at law can, be vacated and set aside. Still further, and more fundamentally, plaintiff is not entitled to such relief because a court of equity has no power to vacate or set aside a judgment at law. Such a judgment cannot be vacated and set aside otherwise than by the court rendering it, or by an appellate court on writ of error. If, then, the relief sought is limited to a vacation and setting aside of the law judgment complained of, plaintiff is not entitled to such relief. But such is the only relief which the bill seeks. I will, however, treat the relief 'sought as being an injunction against the enforcement of that judgment, as plaintiff in its brief would now have it, and dispose of the motion on that basis.
What we have here is this question and none other, to wit: Should a federal court sitting in equity enjoin a judgment rendered by it sitting at law, adjudging that the plaintiff therein is the owner and entitled to the possession of certain real estate located in its territorial jurisdiction,"in a suit brought by the defendant therein against such plaintiff, because since the rendition of the judgment the highest court of the state, in a case pending before it, has decided just the other way; i. e., that the defendant therein, and not the plaintiff, is the owner and entitled to the possession thereof? The question is really not so broad as this. And it is difficult to imagine how it is possible for the question as to the ownership of such real estate, after it has been determined by the federal court, can ever come up again on its merits in the state court between the same parties. But I am ignoring this difficulty and putting the question as broadly as it is possible to put it, because, if it should turn out that such question, so put must be answered in the negative, it will ha ve to be so answered, if put in narrower form.
The question thus put comes to this: Should a federal court sitting in equity enjoin the enforcement of a judgment rendered by it sitting at law as to the ownership of such real estate because its judgment was erroneous, at the instance of the party against whom the error was committed? That it was erroneous is made out by the fact that since its rendition the highest court of the state has decided the question as to the ownership the other way, and, if its decision had been made before its rendition, the federal court would have been bound to and would have followed it. The sole significance that the state court has so decided is that it makes out that the federal court erred in its judgment. The question before us may therefore be said to come to this: Will a federal court sitting in equity ever enjoin a judgment rendered by it sitting at law because such judgment was er- . roneous ? Or it may be put in a still shorter, but broader, form. Will a court of equity ever enjoin a law judgment because it is erroneous? This is exactly the question which the motion before us presents for consideration and determination. The plaintiff herein complains that the law judgment rendered by this court, against which it seeks relief, was erroneous, and on that ground it seeks to have its enforcement enjoined. It seeks to have its enforcement enjoined on no other 'ground.
*764 “It is well established that under certain circumstances courts of equity will interfere to restrain proceedings at law, and its jurisdiction to stay legal proceedings may, in a proper case, be exercised at any stage of the legal cause. An injunction may be granted to stay a trial, or after verdict to stay judgment, and after judgment to stay execution, and to prevent an assignment of the judgment.”
He then proceeds to set forth the circumstances under which a court of equity will so interfere. He first quotes from the opinions of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere and Chief Justice Marshall on this subject. The opinion of the former was rendered in what Judge Rogers calls “the great case” of Earl of Oxford, 1 Ch. Rep. 1 (1615). The Lord Chancellor begins his opinion thus:
“The law of God speaks for the plaintiff. Deut. 28 and equity and good conscience speak wholly for him. Nor does the law of the land speak against him.”
He sets forth that restraining proceedings under a judgment at law is a part of equity jurisdiction^ which is referred to in these words:
“The use of the chancery has been in all ages to examine equity in all cases, saving against the king’s prerogative.”
He then stated the principles on which equity restrains such proceedings in these words:
“When a judgment is obtained by oppression, wrong, and a hard conscience, the Chancellor will frustrate and set it aside, not for any error or defect in the judgment, but for the hard conscience of the party.”
The opinion of Chief Justice Marshall was rendered in the case of Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 7 Cranch, 332, 336, 3 L. Ed. 362. He quotes therefrom the following, to wit:
“Without attempting to draw any precise line to which courts of equity will advance, and which they cannot pass, in restraining parties from availing themselves of judgments at law, it may safely be said that any fact which clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of which the injured party could not have availed himself in a court of law, or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or accident, unmixed with any fault, or negligence in himself or his agents, will justify an application to a court of chancery.”
Judge Rogers, after so quoting, thus summarizes the matter:
“The’ rule is undoubted that a court of equity will not interfere with judgments at law, unless the complainant had an equitable defense of which he could not avail himself at law, or had a good defense at law of which he was prevented of availing himself by fraud or accident, unless by his own or his agent’s negligence.”
This summary does not seem to cover the case of procuring a judgment at law by fraud, or at least all cases of such procuring. This ■ground of interference is referred to by Judge Rogers, with a certain distinction, in these words:
“It is well-established principle • that equity will afford a remedy where fraud has been practiced in procuring a judgment or decree, but the fraud must relate to the procuring of the judgment or decree, and not the transaction which was the basis of the decree. * * * Here the fraud complained of is not fraud in procuring the judgment, but in inducing the complainant to enter into the contract which is the basis of the judgment.”
The decisions cited by defendant in relation to bills of review, to which I have referred to in the earlier portion of this opinion, are in point here. Plaintiff picks flaws in them. I do not find it necessary to deal with its criticisms. It is sufficient to say that the plaintiff does not cite a solitary decision upholding its position that, in such a case as here, error or defect in the judgment at law is ground for restraining its enforcement by a court of equity; whereas, in stating the law governing the subject of equitable restraint of the enforcement of judgments at law, error or defect in the judgment is never stated-as a ground of interference, but, on the other hand, it is stated that it is not a ground of interference.
I am constrained to sustain the motion to dismiss.
<§=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes