*1 PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff- SIGNAL Appellee, al., Defendants- Bus FARHA et
N. Appellants.
No. 72-3375. Appeals, States Court Fifth Circuit.
July 20, 1973.
Rehearing Aug. Denied Wichita, Kan., Sawatzky, J. Gerald Willatt, Houston, Tex., de-
Michael
endants-appellants.
f
Bakke,
Gallman,
Otis
O.
Michael
C.
Tex.,
Houston,
plaintiff-appellee.
AINSWORTH,
GODBOLD
Before
Judges.
CLARK, Circuit
PER CURIAM:
Parha
N. Bus
December
On
holding
title to
record
and other
of land
Galveston
tract
a certain
brought
Texas,
County,
an action
Sig-
against
Kansas,
Sedgwick County,
seeking
to recover
nal
Signal’s
use
the reasonable
Signal pur-
occupation
land.
third
from a
chased
acquired party
purportedly
had
who
possession.
adverse
*2
dustries,
(2d
question
F.2d
here
361
857
Cir.
is
raised as
No
subject
1966);
personal
mat-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sab
Kansas Court’s
batino,
(2d
1962),
F.2d
of this action. On Feb-
307
845
Cir.
ter
grounds,
398,
ruary
1972, Signal
trespass to
on other
84
11,
filed a
rev’d
376 U.S.
923,
(1964);
try
in the
Dis-
senting) : reason, For this respectfully I dissent. ignores majority long opinion The majority purposes assumes for standing rule law that federal court its decision that the federal district custody over obtains can in rem Texas had asserting litigants restrain *3 over the land at In issue. the Kansas any “claim, right, title” another court or agreed the that suit title property. to the same See Julian v. Co., 93, Accordingly, land an I am 114, Central Trust 193 U.S. was issue.2 24 sas, signed judge ap- Bonding Surety by 1. See the also Lion was and & v. Co. attorneys plaintiffs Karatz, by 89, 480, proved for and de- 262 43 S.Ct. (1923) the fac- L.Ed. fendants. The Order summarized 67 : 871 “The court legal acquired jurisdiction through follows: which first possession tual and issues as property vested, herein are: 6. The factual issues of the is while (a) Signal Properties, Inc., possession, power its it Has or holds with the to adversely pos- predecessors in interest hear and ail determine relat- controversies question ting a the 25 acres in for suf- right, It sessed thereto. the has while con- period comply tinuing prior of time to with jurisdiction, to ficient exercise its per- of Yernon’s Civil Stat- to Article 5509 determine for itself far how it will Texas, any under a deed utes of the State of mit possession other court to interfere with such period jurisdiction.” the from or for December deeds and through 31, 1964, majority opinion December 1971? The relies on Inc., Signal (b) or Klein, 276, 281, Has States 303 U.S. 58 predecessors a under recorded (1938), its held L.Ed. owing warranty paid proposition the taxes may deed and prop for the a that court they question be- erly adjudicate in before land rights property in in the delinquent period possession of a sufficient came of another court and ren comply any Article 5509 Ver- judgment with of time to der in “not conflict with the State Tex- of of authority non’s Civil Statutes as, questions that court’s to decide paid by or on jurisdiction such taxes or were within its and to make effec predecessors plaintiffs or their behalf of by tive such decisions its control of years property.” more thereof? for one or present case, the In the the Signal Properties, Inc., (c) its or Has being by Kansas court is the asked pos- adversely predecessors plaintiffs in interest question to decide within the question for a suf- in sessed the 25 acres of the Texas federal district comply court, namely, to with Article time ficient the “title to land in the question.” of the State Civil Statutes Thus, quotation of Vernon’s the and December apparently of Texas between 1922 2, Klein is in with the conflict by majority opinion. 1971? result reached the question completely (d) Is the land in Moreover, a review of the in Klein facts lands of the defend- other surrounded confirms that the case lends little or no support ant? majority opinion. the Klein In Signal Properties, (e) or Has the United States district held court predecessors in culti- interest money its for bondholders who not be could purposes agricultural and used for money vated who located but by were awarded the in the acres at least one-tenth of in a decree all favor of bondholders particular continuously question for a similarly plaintiffs situated to in the ten-year period prior to December years lawsuit. Several later a suit was so, during 1971, and, said time Pennsylvania the filed Escheator of in cultivating party in ad- actual the so a state obtain a decree of escheat. contemplated as thereof subsequent verse This state court did not suit Civil Stat- Vernon’s Article 5515 of controversy the involve same as was de the of Texas? utes of State court, cided the federal but predeces- plaintiffs formality necessary (f) per tlieir was a Are rather money to the land of title sors true owners fect the state’s the the claim to as they question, such owners and were transferee Klein, the bondholders. Unlike present time? the in the from 1964 instant matter the state presents Companies, Signal (g) court suit Kansas issues iden defendant Has (formerly Signal & tical to the suit in the Com- Texas Oil Gas occupied in- pany) district court. the acres and used period so, what If herein? volved the is reasonable in the and what Pretrial Order of time Conference occupation? Sedgwick County, Kan- use and of such District Court of value and fail following in the Kansas action ex- eeed reasons persuaded the thus, issuing action obtain the Texas judge for pressed the district damages occupancy for use and injunction: they had no title. This land to which in this Court “A. Both the action manifestly ineq- unfair and would be Sedge- in the District Court of plaintiffs uitable to here. Kansas, deter- County, involve wick actions, diversity “B. In Texas law is ownership of actual mination determining required applied to to be in Galveston located real located Texas. Texas land Although County, Texas. held courts have that real action for recov- suit is couched as an exclusively subject to the laws of ery and occu- use sovereignty territory it within whose land, pancy must inevita- Therefore, the Kansas is situated. present titleholder decide the ble [sic] no over court has awarding damages (which are before *4 an- res located within the control of rental), any. if That what is called other state. litigated proposed to in the Kansas be by open For the Kansas 'Court to deter- action, “C. admitted in Court as effectively possessory here, mine title would counsel for defendants and as re- with, deprive, this pretrial interfere not flected in the order entered jurisdiction. prevent its To Moreover, the of Kansas case. counsel they interference with Federal this this for admitted defense could suc- pos- essary by (h) Signal to sustain title adverse Has defendant Oil & Gas Company occupied session? used and tlie 25 acres (e) so, period limita- Are the Texas statutes of involved herein? If for what suspended re- tolled as to tions or of time and what is the reasonable occupation? the life the owner of maindermen until value of- use and (i) Signal Properties, dies? Has defendant estate occupied (f) limita- of Are the Texas statutes Inc. used and the in- 25 acres year so, period heirs fol- as to If tolled one volved herein? for what tions ¡g lowing es- when the death of the owner of time and the reasonable value wbat probated? occupation? tate is not of such use and by plaintiffs’ (j) (g) the predeces- barred claim Are Did defendants or their recognize ownership limita- being of Texas statutes Kansas or sors the as plaintiffs predecessors? ? their tions or plaintiffs’ (h) (k) plaintiffs predeces- is the effect of Did their What or ques- payment permit land of taxes the sors use of land defend- predecessors? ants or their tion? payment of any (i) (l) effect of is the What Did defendants or of them (for- by Signal Companies, Inc. plaintiffs give taxes merly Signal ever actual notice to or Company) ? alleged Gas predecessors Oil & ad- their of their payment of (j) possession? effect of is the What verse Properties, by Signal Inc.? legal taxes are: 7. The issues herein plaintiffs’ (k) un- pay barred implied claims (a) Are to Does an contract judicata? res of der the doctrine the owner reasonable to by Signal recording (l) Oil & occupation Did the land Texas for use and Company Butler any from defendants, the deed Gas of or of arise when the Signal Com- deed from occupy and the them, in panies, the use or land owned Signal plaintiffs predecessors to their under or plaintiffs their or to constitute notice this of the facts and circumstances pos- predecessors adverse claims of case? required (b) ? sesion Texas law to What is Company (m) Signal posses- acquire Oil & Gas Was adverse title to land plaintiffs duty or inform to under sion? predecessors undisputed the transaction with (c) their facts here- Under the they have Butler, intent and the there adverse possession? regarding requisite period adverse had time defendants predecessors? their or (d) prove clear Must defendants every satisfactory fact nec- and evidence disposition ever, that it would Court’s consideration be “inconceivable” case, preliminary injunction pending of this the same si- allow issues be multaneously in must issue.” state and federal courts juris- if the federal court had exclusive impracticali- should also consider We ty diction the res. at 155. 474 F.2d trying and inconvenience of title to I rules of Texas land in a Kansas court. would adhere to the law distant Supreme previously by enunciated statute, anti-injunction U.S.C. Court and our recent Fifth Circuit cas- (1970), presents no obstacle § es, and affirm the court deci- exception specific permits this case. A sion. in- a federal district court junction issue an stay proceedings in a state necessary in court where aid of fed- jurisdiction.
eral court’s Here dis-
trict court able to an in- should be issue pre-
junction in aid of its continuing court from
vent
multiplicitous proceedings, from render-
ing effectively a decision could
deprive the court of its in through principles ju- of res estoppel, dicata collateral O’Neal, O’NEAL and Leo Charles n rendering potentially a decision incon- *5 Appellants, federal sistent with a decision court. al., et RIVER TRIBE CHEYENNE SIOUX Appellees. ap- previously We summarized law Indemnity plicable to No. 73-1031. in Pacific this case Company Delivery Service, Inc., v. Acel Appeals, United States Court Cir., 1970, 952, 954, F.2d as fol- Eighth Circuit. lows: Submitted June 1973. language explicit 2283 is July 24, § Decided 1973. defining circumstances Rehearing Aug. Denied may stay pro-
ceedings court; however, in a state judicially
certain timeworn declared
exceptions Thus, it is said do exist. jurisdiction
that over the where the quasi rem,
proceedings
is in rem
having
state or federal court
“[T]he
custody
has exclusive
proceed.”
Donovan v.
City
Dallas,
1579, 1582,
(1964). Cir., 1973, Zink, also See Jett v. issues, F.2d identical where
concerning validity agreement of an parties’ an oil
to define the interests in
field, pending were both state declined
federal court in Alabama. We enjoin court suit because state
the federal court’s personam, said, was in but we how-
case