| U.S. Cir. Ct. | Oct 19, 1882
Several grounds have been argued as conclusive against the right of complainant to an injunction as asked for, such as, whether the cause was removable at all from the county court of Tarrant county, whether the removal was asked for in time, and whether complainant’s bill shows any equity entitling the complainant to an injunction. The conclusion we have reached renders it unnecessary to pass on these questions at this time. The injunction asked for is clearly and in terms one to restrain or stay proceedings
Section 720, Eev. St., provides: “The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.” This statute prevents this court from granting the injunction asked for, even if complainant has otherwise a proper case for such relief. See Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U.S. 254" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1876-01-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/haines-v-carpenter-89169?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="89169">91 U. S. 254. In so holding, it is not intended to decide that in proper cases, where the United States court is first seized of jurisdiction, and parties are instituting thereafter such proceedings in state or other courts as will, if successful, defeat the j nrisdiction of the United States court or deprive complainant therein of all benefit of any decree or judgment rendered in his favor, the United States court cannot by injunction lay its hands on parties, and control their proceedings, although thereby proceedings in a state court may be indirectly stayed or ended.
Such a case is that of French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 231" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1875-03-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/french-v-hay-89068?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="89068">22 Wall. 231. In that case the United States court had prior jurisdiction, and the enjoined party was seeking to execute, in a state court, a decree which to all intents and purposes had become the decree of the United States court, and had been annulled and vacated by the court. The case here, where we are asked to enjoin all further proceedings, etc., is one where the state eourt undoubtedly had prior jurisdiction, and the question as to whether that jurisdiction is ended is in dispute between the parties; the state court undoubtedly still claiming jurisdiction, notwithstanding the petition aijd bond filed therein to remove the case to this court.
The injunction asked for must be refused, and such order will be entered in the case.
McCormick, I). J., concurring.