*1 PAINTER, RAILWAY CO. v. SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATRIX. 17, 1941. Arguеd 20, 21, November
No. 24. 1941. Decided October Sidney O’B. H. Messrs. Alderman, with whom S. Mr. Campbell, Rudolph Coоper, and Kramer, A. Bruce J. petitioner. brief, for Prince were on the R.S. Eagleton Mark D. Elam, whomMr. Roberts P. with
Mr. respondent. brief, for on the was
158 opinion delivered of the the
Me. Justice Frankfurter Court.
On August 31, 1939, respondent brought an action against petitioner in the fеderal for District Court the Eastern District of damages Missouri to recover under the Emрloyers’ Federal Liability Act, Stat. 65; 45 U. S. C. seq., wrongful et for § the death of her husband while emplоyed petitioner by as a fireman on an interstate train operated between in points and North Carolina. While this action pending, was filed a bill the Chancery Court County, Tennessee, of Knox alleging that respondent and the deceased were of citizens Tennessee; that petitioner, Virginia having a corporation its principal office in Richmond, Virginia, does no business Missouri other than of an interstate character; that the accident- occurred North County, Carolina, “just Madison be- the yond North Carolina-Tennessee line”; that Mis- federal court is souri morе than 500 miles distant from respondent’s residence, the of petitioner’s residence wit- *4 and nesses, place the where the accident that occurred; could transport not its petitioner witnesses to Missouri at except “enormous that еxpense”; respondent’s purpose in bringing in suit Missouri towas evade the law of Ten- nessee and North and Carolina; that petitioner maintains agents in Tennessee and North Carolina upon whom thereupon enjoined can be served. The process chancellor from her in respondent further action the proseсuting
159 instituting any Missouri federal court and from similar in against petitioner suits the state federаl except and in courts Tennessee and North Carolina. did Respondent aрpeal Instead, “supple not from this decree. she filed a enjoin in mental bill” the Missouri federal court to the Holding that in the Tennessee state court. proсeedings damages respondent’s commencement of action for the еx the federal sole and gave “specific, complete, court jurisdictiоn” upon” which not be “intrenched clusive could an Court, by in another the District by court, proceedings from decree, forbade interlocutory appropriаte in court its suit the state prosecuting further This decree was it to dismiss the state suit. and ordered Eighth for the Appeals the Circuit Court of by affirmed the case 313 brought here, 2d 100. We Circuit, 117 F. jurisdictional prob in of the relation of its U. view 556, S. York Insurance Co. in New Toucеy lems to those v. Life Bridge Co., Corp. Finance v. Iowa-Wisconsin Phoenix and ante, р. 118. on the of the federal imposed power limitations
The Code, Judicial as wе have by applied 265 of the courts § in and Phoenix day Toucey cases, this the suрra, them of this case. The govern disposition restrictions of the injunction stay litigatiоn to a in the of the upon use § though district courts even such court confine the а state in of an earlier suit injunction sought support is the an endowed the federal Congress courts. has courts federal neither jurisdiction generally nor proteсtive with such arising of claims under the the instance Federal specific Liability Act. Evеr since the Act of March Employers’ 334, Congress has done the 1793, 5, precisely § Stat. 2, аppropriate Because of of policy its views the oppositе. judiciaries, Congress and federal has for- of state interplay litigation by exclusivе of absorption bidden the such proceeds If a court the Chancery fedеral courts. state as *5 acted, of any Court of ultimate vindication right lies with this federal Court. Court was here power enjoin
The District without to prosecuting from further its suit the Tеn- nessee state court.
Reversed. Justice, Me. The Chief and Mb. Justice Roberts cоncurring: Reed, Justice led to dissent Toucey which v. York The reasons New Co., and Phoenix Finance Corp. Insurance Iowa- v. Life Co., ante, Bridge p. 118, do not exist this case. Wisconsin decree and therefore no federal no need of There is an prevent the decree or protect relitigation. to injunction CALIFORNIA. EDWARDS v. Argued April 28, 29, Reargued 1941. 21, 17. October
No. 1941. 24,
Decided November 1941.