*1 neither was dure, establishing a distinction “to pre- demanded law nor is in our received present wholly seems logical consistency,” harmony and serve unjustifiable. judgment below my that the
Accordingly, opinion it is reversed. be should and Mr. Murphy, Mr. Justice Douglas,
Mr. Justice Byrnes opinion. in this concur Justice LIFE YORK INSURANCE CO.* TOUCEY v. NEW 17, November Reargued October 1941. Decided No. pro se. Toucey submitted, Samuel B. Messrs. Samuel W. Righter, whom with Richard S.
Mr. Blackwell, on the brief, Jr. were F. and Horace Sawyer in No. 16. respondent Corp. Finance v. Iowa-Wisconsin
*2 * Together Phoenix with No. 670, to certiorari, the Circuit 312 U. Bridge Co., writ also on argued Eighth March for the Appeals Court of Circuit — 17, 20,1941. reargued October [03] i-l o
i—1 CO to i-» *6 Morjord, Casper with whom Mr.
Mr. James R. Schenk for No. 19. brief, petitioner on the Ontjes, C. with whom Mr. Wm. Green was Mr. Fred A. brief, respondent No.
Mr. Justice opinion delivered the Frankfurter Court.
These cases were argued dealt succession and are with in single opinion a controlling because the question in both is the same: Does federal court have stay a proceeding state court simply because the claim controversy adjudicated has been previously the federal court? In
No. 16. Toucey brought suit the New *8 York Life in Insurance Comрany a Missouri state court. He in alleged the him in- company that issued a life policy surance for providing monthly disability benefits and the during for of premiums waiver that disability; he became in disabled and that the defendant April, 1933, fraudulently provisions concealed disability the from him; that the the unlawfully defendant cancelled for policy nonpayment September, 1935, of that premiums; he discovered disability the existence of the that provisions; he applied company then to the for reinstatement of the policy payment disability benefits, and for the and that the refused. company
vH The suit was removed to the federal District Court being the Western District of the a citi- plaintiff Missouri, zen of the defendant a Missouri, corporation, York New All controversy exceeding and the amount $3,000. allegations the material bill the were denied. The dis- trict court no bill, dismissed the that there was finding the defendant’s the part plaintiff fraud on and that was meaning within policy. not disabled of the No appeal was taken.
In in- brought against an action at law was surance company in the court one by Missouri state alleged a resident Shay, of the District of Columbia. He assignee that he was that disa- Toucey’s Toucey’s and bility entitled him judgment. to It does not that appear the insurance company any filed an or other answer pleading. bill” was filed Instead, “supplemental Western setting history District of forth Missouri, litigation alleging between the that parties, assignment Shay was made order to avoid federal enjoined Toucey be from jurisdiction, praying bringing any readjudicating suit for the purpose from issues settled the federal decree and further Shay prosecuting suit. injunction affirmed preliminary granted,
A
was
Eighth
Circuit.
Circuit Court
for the
Appeals
Toucey’s claim in
2d 16. The
held that
F.
court
his
and that
prior
upon proof
disability,
suit rested
Shay proceeding,
issue, necessarily
this
involved
been
determined
the insurance com-
conclusively
had
Stat.
the Judicial
Code,
favor. Section 265 of
pany’s
not to deprive
construed
U.
was
S. C.
court
enjoin
pro-
a federal court of the
“necessary
preserve
injunction is
ceedings where an
the lawful decrees
to effectuate
litigаnts
of,
the fruits
or
Certiorari was
denied,
of the federal courts.”
Toucey
made
injunction
permanent.
and the
*9
again affirmed,
Appeals
the
Court
appealed and
Circuit
ques-
importance
In view of the
No. con- executed a deed of trust corporation, aware bridge across the principally a its veying property, all of Wisconsin, Iowa and to secure between River Mississippi an trustees, Iowa In 1933, bond issue. $200,000 fore- filed a bill of citizen, and a Wisconsin corporation for the Court Northern federal District closure Bridge Company’s stock- One Iowa. District of alleging that defendant, party intervened as a holders and without mortgage were fraudulent bonds Finance the Phoenix Upon motion, his consideration. held almost corporation which Delaware Corporation, Bridge The joined plaintiff. as a was bonds, 90% the inden- validity challenged Company’s answer without con- were issued that the bonds alleged ture and allegations fraud. all Phoenix denied sideration. master, whose modified tried before a The case Finding that the court. adopted by the were conclusions fraudulently issued bonds were mortgage and consideration, without the bonds were almost all Appeals Circuit Court of The court denied foreclosure. and certio F. 2d Eighth affirmed, Circuit rari was denied, separate five suits thereafter instituted
Phoenix seek- courts, Delaware Bridge Company claimed contracts notes and recovery ing various for the bonds. consideration have constituted bill” “supplemental filed a thereupon Bridge Company the is- asserting that Iowa, District of in the Northern res made had been in the state court suits sues involved *10 129 alia, the federal and inter judicata by decree, praying, enjoined be from further prosecuting that Phoenix (In rejected court suits, one of the state state suits. Finance Iowa- judicata Corp. Phoenix plea, the res Bridge 14 2d and Co., 500, 40 Del. A. an 386, Wisconsin in the of Dela pending Supreme is now Court appeal found that Phoenix bound ware.) The court was district prohibition of § and that 265 decree, former injunction. Circuit Ap The Court of no bar to an 1, F. 2d because of the relation peals affirmed, 115 and in 16, brought to those No. we the questions presented 312 here. S. 670. case U. previous have thus decided that The courts below proceed- in the judgments judicata are res state federal notwithstanding the prohibitory therefore, ings, and their in- 265, may the federal courts use §of provisions junctive pro- to save the defendants state powers res ceedings pleading proving the inconvenience judicata.1 of the limitation of the 265—“a
First. Section beginning from dating almost of our courts federal Congressional an expressing important history needless friction between state and prevent policy —to Packing Gas 309 courts,” Oklahoma v.Co. federal § 2, from 5 of March derived of the Act 4, 8-9 - is U. S. injunction . nor “. . shall a writ 1 335: 1793, Stat. any stay court of the granted [by United States] be . In court of state . its any present a proceedings § provision 28 U. 1162, 379, S. C. 36 Stat. form, injunction be “The shall not as follows: reads writ 1 judicata suit raisеs Pleading a federal decree as res (b) of the question reviewable Court under 237 in this federal § Dupasseur v. (b). Code, 937, Stat. 28 U. C. 344 S. Judicial 499; 130; Deposit Frankfort, Bank v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. Kirven, Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. U. S. Stoll 165, Gottlieb,
granted by any stay court United States to pro- ceedings any in cases State, except court of a where injunction may by any relating such law be authorized proceedings bankruptcy.” history Act provision Judiciary of this fully is not We know that December known. on Attorney reported Randolph General Edmund changes the House of Representatives desirable Act of Am. Judiciary Mise., State vol. Papers, No. 21-36. The raised pp. question most Ran- serious *11 dolph concerned the im- arduousness of the circuit duties justices. posed Supreme on Court But the Report also suggested a number dealing of amendments with proce- dural matters. of proposed A section bill submitted injunction himby provided equity that in “no shall be granted judgment district court to law of a at State Id., court.” p. Randolph explained 26. that clause this “will interfering debar district court from with the judgments at plaintiff law the State for if the courts; and defendant rely upon State as courts, far as the they ought they to continue there as judgment, have begun. is enough It split same suit into one at law, and another without equity, adding a further separa- tion, by throwing the question common law side of the into the State and the courts, equity side into the federal Id., p. courts.” Report 34. was considered sitting House as a Committee of the and then Whole, was referred to special successive committees for further con- sideration. No action taken until was Chief after Justice Jay his associates wrote the President their that cir- Formulated as a of equity juris contraction the federal courts’ diction, the Act of general powers their equity “limits in re spect granting to the particular equitable of a relief; form is, of that prevents it them from granting by way injunction relief of cases included within its inhibitions.” Apple, 274, Smith v. 264 U. S. Treinies Mining 279. See 66, Sunshine
CO- t-t cuit-riding duties were too American burdensome. State In p. response vol. No. to this Papers, 32, Misc., transmitted Congress, which was Act complaint, alia, 2,1793, containing 5,§ March was inter рassed, prohibition against staying proceedings. state court in his article Federal and State
Charles Warren Court L. this Interference, suggests 43 Harv. Rev. that provision consequence Randolph’s the direct report. very purpose This view the narrow doubtful, seems federal courts of Randolph’s proposal, namely, judg enforcement of equity should not interfere with the Taylor state See ments at law rendered courts. Enjoin Pro The Power Federal Courts to Willis, n. 14. ceedings Courts, 42 Yale L. 1169, 1171, State J. any There is over the statute. See no record of debates suggested It Congress (1791-93). Annals of has been strong feeling against the then provision that the reflected upon intrusion federal courts the unwarranted Chisholm 2 Dall. was de sovereignty. Georgia, than two weeks before the February less cided 18, 1793, significance of into law. The this provision was enacted Federal and Compare Warren, doubtful. proximity is *12 345, Harv. L. Rev. Interference, 347-48, 43 State Court Line, U. 291-92. 200 S. 273, with Gunter v. Atlantic Coast that the provision the suggestion more is probable Much jurisdic equity prejudices against the prevailing reflected ed.), chron Maclay (1927 The tion. Journal William of he was one of while the of the Senate icling proceedings evidence contains abundant (1789-1791), its members See chancery practice. hostility to widespread of a the bill that on (debate 101-06 especially, pp. 92-94, Moreover, Ells- 1789). Senator of Judiciary Act became States), United the (soon of Justice worth to become Chief Judici and 1793 the 1789 of both draftsman principal jurisdiction. equity for Acts, indicated a dislike ary often 194; Jour (1905 ed.) Ellsworth Oliver Brown, See of Life Warren, New 103-04; ed.) (1927 Maclay nal William of 132 1789, Judiciary Federal Act
Light History on the 49, L. Rev. 96-100.3 37 Harv. shaped which of the various influences
Regardless 2, 1793, the Act of March the purpose §of 5 of enactment underlying the are from provision manifest and direction courts should be free state proceedings its terms: injunction. federal The by provision from interference duty by of “hands off” the federal face expresses its injunction in stay litigation the use of courts court.4 language unquali- Second. The of the Act of 1793 was injunction granted fied: . . nor shall a writ of be 1 any court of a statе ...” Stat. stay proceedings In the one hundred and fifty years, course of Con- few withdrawals from this gress sweeping has made prohibition:
(1) legisla- proceedings. Bankruptcy only This is the exception tive which been into incorporated directly has “. injunction 265: . . cases where such except may § by any relating be authorized law proceedings bank- ruptcy.” 36 Stat. 1162. This 21 provision, upon § based Bankruptcy of the 14 in- 1867, Act of Stat. 526, serted the Act Revisers. R. §S. 1793, outlawing The last of 5 of Act clause the familiar § parte injunction, hostility chancery ex illustration affords another injunction] practice: granted any “nor shall writ such be case [of previous party, attorney, to the without reasonable notice adverse or his place moving time and for the same.” 1 Stat. 335. Code, 262 of Judicial S. C. Section Stat. § Judiciary is from 14 of the Act of which derived Stat. provided “courts of the United States shall have to issue facias, corpus, specially and all other writs of scire habeas writs not provided statute, may necessary be for the exercise of respective agreeable princiрles and jurisdictions, their to the usages general given powers of law.” to the federal courts thus *13 specific obviously subsequent of the enactment were limited prohibitory of provisions the Act of 1793.
133 (1872), Draft Revision U. Statutes S. Proposed see 418. pp. 1, vol. ever Acts, The Removal Removal actions.
(2) have 79, 24, 1789, 73, Stat. September the Act of since remove to entitled any party whenever that provided petition court a proper with the state file a suit shall surety, good with and sufficient and a bond for removal accept court such of the state to duty then be the it shall cause.” no further in the “and proceed bond petition re to inapplicable been deemed always has Section S. Huidekoper, Dietzsch 103 U. v. proceedings. moval Co., 196 U. Mining Traction Co. Madisonville 494; that these decisions is true rationale of 239. The the Act of 1793. Subse pro tanto qualify Removal Acts ground the loose advanced clarified have decisions quent Burke 253. Kline v. 250, Wall. See Hay, in French v. The Co., Taylor Willis, 260 U. S. Construction Enjoin Proceedings State to Power Federal Courts Bryant v. Courts, 1174-75; compare 42 Yale L. J. 1169, Co., 92 F. 2d 571. 569, Line R. Atlantic Coast Act of shipowners’ liability. Limitation The (3) limiting liability shipowners provides to interest in the vessel shipowner after transfers his claimants, for the benefit of the “all claims and a trustee the owner or owners shall cease.” proceedings 635, Being “subsequent statute” to the 9 Stat. operates legis- provision implied Act of this as an it. amendment Providence & N. Y. Co. lative S. S. Mfg. 578, 599; Admiralty Hill see Rule S., p. appendix, (4) Interpleader. Interpleader Act of 1926, Interpleader amended the 1917 Act, 39 Stat. Stat. “Notwithstanding as provide any follows: pro- Code to the contrary, vision Judicial said [district] all process court shall have issue its such injunction against claimants and issue an order of enjoining instituting them from them, prose- each of or *14 134
cubing any suit or proceeding any State court or any Dugas other Federal court . . .” See American v. Surety Co., 300 U. 428; S. Treinies Sunshine 414, v. Mining Co., 66, 308 U. 74.
(5) filing Frazier-Lemke Act. The petition o£ a relief under this subjects Act the farmer and prop- his erty, wherever located, jurisdiction” the “exclusive the federal court. And with except the consent of the court, specified proceedings against the farmer or his property “shall not be if instituted, or at any instituted time prior to the filing section, of a petition under this shall be not maintained, any court . .”. Stat. 47 1473. Feuerstein, See Kalb 308 v. U. S.
Third. brings This us applications apart from these statutory qualifications. early The decisions of this Court applied the Act of 1793 aas matter of course.5 Hagan a line However, beginning of cases with Diggs
5 The arising first case provision Keith under the & Wolcott, brought (1807), appellants v. Cranch an where action at law on promissory various notes in a state court. While this pending, action was still bill defendant filed chancery court for cancellation of notes. The latter suit was removed to federal circuit court which the notes cancelled and enjoined prosecution the further the state at law. action report proceeding merely of the in this Court states that “the court being opinion that a circuit court of the United States had jurisdiction enjoin not proceedings court, in a state reversed the decree.” In his Commentaries (1826) 1, Law p. American vol. 386, stating Kent, Chancellor that the decision in the case “is not contested,” to be refers to it as illustrative a situation “in which any control the federal the state courts, over other than means appellate jurisdiction, equally prevented.” the established has been Jenness, 625, holding 612, v. 7 How. sitting Peck that a federal court bankruptcy discharge could not prior lien of a attachment law, under state was the case expressly made first upon relied Act Smith, 263, of 1793. In Orton v. How. the Court held enjoin a state it error action to establish title to certain land. of the United have no such “The courts States over suitors in a state court.” fed- Lucas, court, whether holds
v. Pet. res with- which first takes of a possession eral or state, Taylor of the from the reach other. property draws the Howe, 24 How. Freeman 20 How. v. Carryl, Burke Construction See Kline authority “The [federal state] 235: rank possess courts cannot or con- equal but both courts are any *15 thing time, attempt the same and trol the same at rule, conflict. The unseemly result in would to do so jurisdiction acquiring first shall that the court therefore, the other from court of interference a without proceed based neces- right upon and law rule of jurisdiction is a does potential, or the actual necessity, where sity, and necessity Since that not apply. rule does exist, the not exist actions does not in actions in rem exist does liability personal question involving a -personam, apply does not former but applies rule only, latter.” Congress to avoid the desire expresses The Act of 1793 the states government federal between friction into the authority of federal intrusion resulting from The judicial process. state’s functioning of a orderly an application is but res cases doctrine of reciprocal between the the Act. Contest underlying the reason over the judicial systems distinct two representatives actual give physical rise to would property physical same therefore, that settled, well has become The rule friction. injunction by the use of the preclude does not 265 § seeking to proceedings restrain state court to federal a custody of the court.6 property with interfere Co., Lake Street 177 Trust Co. v. R. Loan & Farmers’ 6 the res control over court’s exclusive extent to which federal rem is its decrees injunction require to effectuate may use of 188; Manufacturing Co., U. S. Mills v. 198 Riverdale illustrated Hunt, Co., 93; and Local Loan Co. v. Trust S. Julian v. Central 193 U. Baldwin, parte Ex 291 615. 234, 241. Cf. U. S. 292 S.U. Co., U. S. Burke Construction Kline v.
U. S. 61; Karatz, 262 U. Bonding S. Lion Co. v. 226, 229, 235; Interference, Court Federal and State Warren, see 88-89; court a state And where 345, 359-66. 43 Harv. L. Rev. are dis- res, federal courts acquires control of first injunction or it, by exercising any over from abled Texas, U. Palmer S. otherwise. v. exception an constitute cases is said to group
Another
liti
enjoined
federal courts have
where
265, namely,
§to
obtained
fraudulently
enforcing judgments
gants from
Fourth. We Reynolds, Dial of which is 96 U. S. the first cases, indebted to simple: Cooper are case facts mort- he executed a To these debts Staatsman. secure under Dial was trustee. As- trust which gage deed of to the covered serting property title in himself in brought ejectment against Cooper Reynolds mortgage, On this Court set aside writ of error the federal court. in to be favor and held title judgment Reynolds’ Reyn- 308, 321. Reynolds, 10 Wall. Cooper v. Cooper. ejectment action his olds thereafter dismissed brought Cooper action a new federal court the claim thus upon court based Tennessee state Cooper joining litigated. Staatsman, Dial and previously filed suit the federal court to defendant, party as a enjoin from Reynolds and to fur- mortgage foreclose the lower his the state court. The action prosecuting ther and this Court af- Reynolds’ demurrer, court sustained “gravamen” of the bills It held that the was an firmed. from proceeding prevent Reynolds injunction injunction, except under “Such an court. grant. of the United States can no court Act, Bankrupt by law.” expressly it is forbidden exception, this With 341.8 96 U. S. at parte Ex cases like we need not here consider For reasons similar Line, Young, 123, and Atlantic Coast U. S. Gunter v. 209 U. S. Trading Co., 306 U. compare v. Bimco Hale
with proceeding the com held in a foreclosure also The Court adversely the mort join person who claims a third plainant cannot misjoinder consequently was a there mortgagee, and that gagor and were, grounds for decision These at 341. parties. *17 dispose either alone sufficient alternative, was course, there distinct, and entirely separate and they were However, case. was not Looney Eastern Texas R. court, “relitigation” a case. The Texas federal district brought by carriers, granted prelimi- in a suit various injunction restraining Attorney nary the state General them proceeding penalties upon from to assess fines and with of the complying an order Interstate Commerce The Attorney Commission. General nevertheless insti- proceedings tuted in enjoin court a state carriers from complying with the order, Commission’s and a supplemental bill was filed the federal court to stay The proceedings. district' injunction, court issued the and this Court dismissed appeal an under holding injunction below upon that was not based uncon- stitutionality of the statutes, Texas state but granted merely to protect jurisdiction its until brought the suit by finally the carriers was settled. The case obviously Supreme Cauble, does not rule ours. Tribe Ben-Hur v. 356, held that a federal district court, having decree in a brought rendered a class suit in behalf of all members of a certain class of beneficiaries enjoin association, may fraternal members class, decree, found to be bound from prosecuting suits in the state courts which relitigate would questions set- opinion tled such decree. The of Mr. Justice Day no reference to either contains the Act of March 2, 1793, or Dial Reynolds. opinion is devoted almost entirely ato discussion of whether the former decree is judicata res the state suits. Having determined this question affirmative, Court disposed of the remaining question in one citing sentence, only §— 265— support its conclusion, one case Looney v. Eastern any no might is basis for inference upheld the Court have injunction Reynolds joined. if properly an had been Nor need we ejectment, consider common-law refinements actions for for the explicitly duty went obey Court on its the Act of 1793.
139 Co., seen, have was not a supra, as we which, Texas R. at 367. case.9 relitigation 255 Congres- apart that from find, therefore, We Fifth. “exception” im- only has been authorization, one sional judicial construction, to res by wit, 265 the § bedded found exception way The fact that one has its cases. making another. Fur- justification no § into is having its roots same thermore, exception, the res § uninterrupted had an sprang 265, from which has policy acceptance the decisions. The firmly established when unequivocally the on the books of res cases was rule § Act original the reenacted Congress by of 1874 and later the Revised Statutes by first in 1911. Code Judicial “relitigation
In contrast striking are cases.” Loose ill-considered decision cannot language sporadic, and a law doctrine to have imbedded our a which so be held Congress.10 expressed prohibition violates patently erroneously regarded Woolworth, 401, is as v. 150 U. S. Root exception merely illustrating “relitigation” 265. The case holds a § jurisdiction equity their own de to “effectuate courts of have injunctions or assistance in order avoid the by writs of crees questions parties.” relitigation once settled between same injunction uphold did not a federal 411-12. The Court 150 U. S. at relitigate already previ claim settled a state suit brought. had been such state suit Conse federal decree—no ous applicability of occasion to consider the quently, there was no § Starr, of cases come, first served” rationale like Prout The “first Construction discarded in Kline v. Burke 188 U. S. 254, 257. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 226, 235. Cf. Haines that, assumption proposals for the 10 There is no warrant Congress “relitiga it the Code of had before for the Judicial gave legis it exception doctrine, as and that
tion” settled Special Report Joint Committee on lative confirmation. annotated Codification of Laws of United States Revision and twenty-six of this Court. with citations to decisions Act of p. reference Rept. Sess., 2d 470. Yet no Cong., Sen. 61st No. to the prior was made four the five decisions of this Court dealing here coursе of deci We are not with a settled origin erroneous but around which substantial sions, recent Only episodic have clustered. a few interests exception furnish a basis for the utterances tenuous What explicitly which we are now asked to sanction. *19 turning there error into justification may past ever be for be expectations thereby law when reasonable would urged of a justification no can be on behalf defeated, such judicial doctrine the distribution of procedural reality between courts. It denies to federal and state in reli litigants their conduct suggest shaped have appli talk in decisions in the upon past ance some loose im upon more erroneous or, concretely, cation of § R. from Eastern Texas plications Looney drawn v. Cauble, supra. Ben-Hur supra, Supreme and Tribe v. of Hallock, Helvering 106, 119-20. Compare S. v. suggest in the merest fiction to that the indulging It is are to pro- for the first time we asked doctrine which light and in the of full con- eyes open with our nounce obviously firmly part and of the tex- sideration, was so it Congress through law that effect enacted ture of our regard its silence. There is no occasion here to silence Congress commanding plainly of than its own as more “relitigation” supposed justify the Judicial Code which are to doctrine: Starr, Woolworth, 401; Ro Prout 188 U. ot v. 150 U. S. v. 188; Manufacturing Co., 198 U. S. Gunter Riverdale Mills v. (As already seen, Line, Atlantic we have Coast 200 U. S. Hay, like French and Dietzsch v. “removal” cases Wall. Huidekoper, upon entirely footing.) rest an different reports Congress any of None of the submitted contains discussion to construing Rept. 1793 and the decisions it. See H. 5 of the Act of referring Cong., Sess., Cong., H. Doc. 61st 818, 61st 2d to No. No. Sess.; Rept. Cong., Report 61st 2d Final Sess.; 2d No. of Sen. Codify Revise and the Laws of the United Commission any 29, 244. Nor do the debates disclose pp. consid (1906), States Cong. Rec., pts. IV, Ill question. See and and 46 eration I-V, Cong. passim. Rec., pts. not situation unmistakably words. This is spoken having been re- to act after Congress has failed
where the circumstances are such that where act or quested ordinarily expected pro- be to act. The Congress would subject compre- never been the 265 have §of visions exceptions Even the reexamination. legislative hensive incidental features of legislation have been referable Inter- the Removal and statutory such as schemes, other comprehensive policy explicit Acts. The pleader significance To find been left intact. Act of 1793 has circumstances is nonaction under these Congressional where there is none. significance find withholding an instance 265 is not isolated Section Anglo- equity powers possessed by courts the federal from adjustments part As delicate courts. American Congress rigorously con- federalism, has by our required in their relation to the courts” courts trolled “inferior system England of the courts unitary the states. *20 these problems. is saved in the guiding consideration enforcement of
The Mr. Justice expressed by Camp- was Congressional policy Taylor Carryl, in 20 How. 597: for the v. Court, bell, judicial Congress, organizing legislation of “The States, circumspection exhibits much of the United powers the tribunals avoiding placing occasions in any the Union collision.” and of States regard our for the limits scrupulous must be within We authority Congress has confined the courts its own creation.
Reversed. Douglas took no consideration part Mr. Justice of No. 19. or decision Reed, dissenting:
Mr. Justice controlling Toucey in both issue Phoe pro is the federal court to Finance cases nix tect those who have obtained its decrees an effort relitigation force of the same causes of action state Questions courts. judicata of res seem inapposite for the conclusion. We are not concerned in either case with the effect of the if might decrees and when they be pleaded the state actions. Since jurisdiction federal in each depended case upon their diversity, effect as a pleaded bar to recovery in the state suits would depend upon the faith and credit law or usage given judg like ments of courts of the containing the federal district.1 But when the preliminary question meaning is the application of the federal decree as a basis for a conclusion toas whether or not the decree shall be enforced further it is steps, entirely a federal question. It is immaterial from that point of whether jurisdiction view the federal was bottomed originally on diversity, or Constitution or laws of the United The power give States. effect to the judgments of federal courts rests with Congress.2 It general has exercised that power for purposes by Judicial Code § 262.3
As originally enacted, § 265 single line a two act page concerning practice in the federal courts, Act of March 5,§ c. 22, Stat. 334. The act’s discon- provisions nected were amendments to the statute estab- lishing Judicial Courts of the United States. The short section in which 265 appeared § on the enlarged one hand 1 R. Hancock 905; Farnum, National Bank v. 28 U. S. C. § S.U. 2 Embry Palmer, 3, 9; Atchison, Ry. T. & F.S. 107 U. S. Co. Sowers, *21 Supreme power “The Court and the district courts shall have Supreme Court, issue writs of scire facias. The the circuit courts of power and the district courts shall have appeals, to issue all writs not provided by specifically statute, may necessary for be for the respective jurisdictions, agreeable exercise usagеs of their and to the (R. principles 716; Act of 231, 262, and of law.” 3, 1911, S. Mar. c. § § 1162.) 36 Stat. them by authorizing this judges Court equity powers injunction, and on the other to issue writs ne exeat and notice. restraining orders without restricted use legislative act, for lack of Left to the four corners of and intention purpose as materials, deductions pro- and faced with the absolute enacting Congress, it be that the might of its well concluded words, hibition injunction running against bar an intention was to The fact distinguished parties.4 from the court as itself long exercised the equity had that courts by their decrees into execution carry entertain bills to strength to such injunction against adds parties lightly would not be powers needed Such supposition.5 withdrawn. however. to such relegated speculations,
We are not embodied another has been in one form or provision This It was continued law since 1793. our statute of 1878 Judicial of the Revised Statutes adoption it have been interpreting It the cases 1911. Code of the decades. through our law into the fabric of woven meet form to been made its changes What would havе it were not for expanding jurisprudence, the needs of our can judicial interpretation, we flexibility supplied by re- when Code of 1911 only conjecture. Certainly Congress into consideration terms, stated its took interpreta- accepted what had time come be its not or section of tion. Granted that 265 is a sentence sought in the legislative meaning whose is to be scheme enactments,6 purpose of the entire enactment or series of Warren, Corp., 290; Cf. Steelman All Continent v. Interference, and State Court (1930) 43 L. Rev. Federal Harv. Pleadings (10th 429; Mitford, Pleadings in 5 Story, Equity Ed.) § (1809) Chancery (1780) Equity pp. 99; p. Cooper, Pleading, Thompson, Leycester, Booth (1837); Kershaw Keen 4 Johns. (N. 1820). Ch. 609 Y. Assns., Trucking v. American United States Cf. 310 U.
144
judicial history intervening'
by
we are
led
nevertheless
beyond
language
the literal
and
passage
since its
to look
to its
weight to
decisions which had added
con-
give
those
In
Judicial Code.
tent before
reenactment
Revision
Joint
Special
Committee
Report
Senate
suggested.
change
language
and Codification no
of
of
then state
indicative
Yet the
as
Committee,
cases
relitigation
and
which are
law, cited numerous cases
We
opinion.7
this
are
analyzed or referred to later
are
to believe
the Code
1911
persuaded
the more
that
all
judicial
legislation with its
early
this
intended to accept
offered. This
because of the alternative
alternative
gloss
years
after
judgment
perhaps
that a federal
entered
is
energy
production
and after the
expense money
and
nothing
of evidence comes
pages
of thousands
judicata
It
for
of res
only
plea
final.
is to be
basis
is
with
by
court,
is to be examined
another
unfamiliar
made, to
already
record
determine whether
issues
adjudication.8
were not
the former
We,
or
settled
were
system
that the difficulties innate in the federal
too, desire
without a
may
away
be smoothed
clash
government
in affirm-
we find no cause for alarm
sovereignties, but
its
parties
forbids
bound
decree to
ing a court which
day
field.9 We
battle
on another
should
fight the
over
hamper
theoretical
reaching
symmetry,
for
not,
needlessly
continuity
break
efficiency
our
A decree
methodology.
forbidding a defeated
judicial
from
based
setting
any right, anywhere,
party
up
upon
7
494;
250;
Dietzsch v.
Hay,
Huidekoper,
French v.
22 Wall.
337;
F.
112;
36
Terry,
193
S.
Sharon v.
Co.,
Central Trust
Julian v.
833;
F.
v. West
Bank,
67
Trust
v. Second National
Central
Co.
Garner
489;
98 F.
Co.,
24;
F.
Co.,
Trust
v.
James
Central
C. R.
N.
ern
F.
Depot
Joseph
Co.,
Chicago,
Ry.
Co. v.
R. & P.
St.
Union
I.
F.
City,
R.
Trust Co. v. Kansas
P. & G.
State
494, 498.
103 S.U.
Huidekoper,
Dietzsch
456, 466.
305 U.
Thompson,
Cf. Princess Lida injunctions are
the usual form where
adjudged,
claims
is
determining
controversies.10
appropriate
literal
from
to'depart
are hesitant
properly
The courts
*23
do induce
Strong equities
in interpreting
ism
a statute.11
the purpose of
ordinary
from the
course where
departure
of a
It
to conceive
is hard
Congress appears plain.12
the
meaning totally
or
which
disasso
statute, new
has a
old,
of ad
body
or the
legislation
from supporting
ciated
in
pos
This
is
within its ambit.
statute
judications
interpretation
the
ture
favorable for
much more
in
relitigation
state
injunctions
it authorizes
in any of the
the statutes construed
courts than were
interpretation
in
note for the
preceding
cases
the
cited
In
that its restatement
in
fact,
them.
we conclude
given
now to be
with the decisions
examined
the
of 1911,
Code
interpretation
the
here advo
existence,
in
necessitates
since 1911 and the failure
decisions
cated. Additional
interpretation
to
this
add some
Congress
repudiate
of
argument.
this
to
thing
substance
divergence
regard
no
view
to the
exists
There
enjoin
proceedings
federal courts to
may
action
embarrass or interfere
where the state
courts
res
control
which
prior
federal court’s
over
is
with
exception
That
is an
265.
possession.13
its
long
firmly
is the
exercised as
Equally
power,
embedded
in-
carrying
execution
§with
into
compatible
equitable
which
against state actions
decrees
junction
rights
parties
or claims between
have settled
might be
litigation.
auxiliary
This
said to be
federal
jurisdiction
property
possession
over
protective
10
157, 166;
337, 345.
Terry,
F.
g., E.
22 Wall.
Sharon v.
Chiles,
re
In
Painter, post, p.
Co. v.
Railway
Cf. Southern
Trucking Assns.,
534;
310 U. S.
United
United States v.
American
478;
Co.,
S.
Miller v.
Guaranty
Nut Mar
280 U.
Trust
States
Regents,
n <r defeated or impaired by institution, by the one of the par- ties, subsequent or proceedings, criminal, whether civil involving the legal questions, same thе state court.” the case of Julian v. Central Trust
In 193
appeared
U. S.
Company.
A railroad
in North Carolina had
property
in the
cir
proceedings
been
under foreclosure
federal
sold
the
free
decree
that
be sold
property
cuit court. The
judicial
the
was confirmed
all
sale
parties
claims
years later
Railway Company.
to the
Some
Southern
prosecuted
judgment
arose which was
a cause of action
against
original mortgagor without
in a
court
state
purchaser,
notice to or claim
Southern.
formerly con
property
threat
In the face of a
sell
enjoined
the circuit court
federal
veyed by
decree,
114: “In
said, pp.
This Court
proceedings.
state
bill
supplemental
may
that a
opinion
we are of
such case
a view to
original
protecting
suit with
be filed
court and to render effec
jurisdiction of the Federal
prior
In
where the Federal
cases
tual
its decree. ...
such
to render its
jurisdiction
own
in aid of its
court acts
notwithstanding
720, Rev.
it
sec.
may,
effectual,
decree
proceedings in a
сourt
restrain all
265 J.
Stat.,
C.]
[§
defeating
its
impairing
or
have the effect
would
right
Federal
It is conceded
jurisdiction.
...
the execution
court from which
up
set
in the state
could be
rights
parties
if
ultimate
denied, the
issued, and,
In the
of error to this court.
writ
upon
determined
can be
court had not
case the Federal
taken of this
view we have
its
at
sale
jurisdiction
protect
purchaser
lost its
as are now before us.”14
such
proceedings
direct
upon
*25
14
in the lower fed
case finds illustrations
the Julian
doctrine of
enforcing fore
were
it is true that
those courts
While
eral courts.
enjoined
accomplished and the
state
had been
closure,
purpose
that
Co.,
relitigation
v.
Trust
sought
closed issues. James
Central
suits
Co.,
modifying
R.
(1899),
Trust Co. v. Western N. C.
489
Central
98 F.
Co.,
F.
City, P.
110
& G. R.
Trust Co. v. Kansas
(1898); State
Riverdale Mills Manufacturing followed the established doctrine. The Riverdale Mills acquired property judicial sale the federal court. A proceeding later was begun by parties to the fed eral alleging foreclosure invalidity of the sale and seeking possession оf the property. Riverdale then filed ancillary original an bill in the foreclosure an in suit for junction against prosecution the state suit. Against the claimed protection (§ R. S. 720 265 J. C.), p. 193, it was held here that a federal court may “protect the title which it against has decreed as every one a party to the original suit and prevent party from relitigating the questions right already have been determined.” P. quite
It is
clear that the
Court
both the Julian and
the Riverdale cases was intent
on protecting
res,
not
long passed
since that had
from hands,
its
but on avoiding
relitigation by executing its decrees. This appears par
ticularly from
upon
their reliance
French
Hay,
Wall.
250; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.
and Sharon v.
In
Terry,
circuit, and stated: “The decree of the federal court, when revived, may stay be used to any attempted en- judgment forcement the of the state court.” P. 364. It true that opinion is the that the shows circuit court jurisdiction was of the view that prior of an in personam gave cause the federal authority court to issue in- an junction against proceedings. state But P. 366. the directly decision was on the point of enforcement of a decree. When the case came this to Court it af- was firmed without ground consideration of 265 on the that § only of the revivor was the propriety matter for decision, 131 U. S.
In Ry. Jones, the later case of Missouri Co. v. Pacific 170 124 (1909), F. a federal court had decided that a fixing statute railroad rates was unconstitutional, state entered and had decrees the railroads accordingly. county attorney commenced in Thereafter, a a suit companies court to restrain state collection any statutory supplemental but the rate. On bill enjoined him the railroads the federal court from prose cuting suit, relitigating that the rate controversy. Similarly, Mining Milling St. Louis & Co. v. Montana Co., 148 Mining F. 450 the unsuccessful (1906), party enjoined the federal suit was proceeding from further in relitigate court already matters decided.15 that The fact the federal was proceeding ancillary to an try action title seems to have had no part decision.16
15
Bank,
(1895).
Cf. Garner v.
almost benefit rights in a as to fraternal entered decree had might enjoin by ancillary suit a class association relitigating from the class other members of bill R. Looney v. Eastern Texas suit. issues in a state sug controlling precedent, cited as *28 Tribe of Supreme Ben-Hur, the appellant, there by gested Id., here under 65 discussion. upon very point the Looney aside lays now case This Court Law. Ed. 675. injunction in being “relitigation” not case. While as a in in it aid Looney decree, not aid*of a case was contro jurisdiction determine a Texas rate taken to main A in versy. junction had been entered temporary Com the Interstate by tain the until a review quo status well injunction may A temporary merce Commission. protection to decree and entitled to same be likened a this Court’s evidently Such was against relitigation. unseemly is it that important 221: “So said, page It view. courts and federal authority between state conflict of maintaining of each jurisdiction be avoided should 265 § other, of the free from the encroachments 2, 1793, Act of March Code, Stats., 720, § the Judicial Rev. Lathrop, Ry. (1906). Cas. No. Fed. F. Craft of this (1851), presents of the exercise the converse situation equivalent contemporary power without consideration of the § After Pomeroy's Equitable (1905) 640, p. 1079. 17 II Remedies § injunc grant may an “Accordingly, federal court discussing a § 265— necessary render in a court when proceeding tion a own effective its decree." applicable been held not repeatedly has 22, Stat.
c. injunction.” such an Hunt, in Local Loan Court, The last case this Co. v. injunction, by a unanimous court an 234, upheld U. S. for- bill in upon ancillary bankruptcy proceeding, a an in claim dis- bidding prosecution a state court of a in This Court its decision charged bankruptcy. placed jurisdiction court to bankruptcy squarely “notwithstanding provisions execute its decrees Quite no mention properly of the Judicial Code.” § 265 § 265 cases where exception “except made of the is relating injunction may by any be authorized law such bankruрtcy.” only The authorization proceedings Bankruptcy 11,11 29,§ Act U. S. C. injunctions § is for during adjudi- stay pending a suits provides which substantially language This is bankruptcy. cation Act of Bankruptcy 1867,14 21 of the Stat. §of in the Revised exception the insertion of Stat- caused is shown the cross-reference under R. utes, as S. 720. exception inapplicable §of 265 was to the specific Furthermore, situation. this case Company Loan Local only every bankruptcy the sense that involved res res, i. the estate. e., involves proceeding courts, adoption since the the Judicial Other federal relitigation enjoin of settled Code, have continued to issues.18 *29 accurately it stated that for more than may think be
We
widely
rule
century
accepted
sup-
there has been a
half a
18
(1918)
McElvain,
Ry.
porting and others directly point adequate precedents are There Some and is sound. the rule exists recognize the same A a res. applied number at one time involved Not the court. a res the hands of when a was never rule present support Court’s is text cited case nor book a the propriety suggest in periodicals No articles position. single query a change, except a desirability positive or of so Though relitigation development.19 logic as to analysis before adop- received careful the Judicial Code con-, to disavow the settled tion,20 inserted language no Reynolds, Dial section. v. reenacted struction of the case, did “relitigation” to be the Court U. said S. title an quiet federal suit to In a not involve a decree. in ejectment. action sought to forbid state injunction was Co., Burke Construction with Kline v. It is line question re- on the persuasive but even not litigation or of decrees. execution original briefly auxiliary now and decrees
turnWe Toucey case, In cases under consideration. two for resto- against company insurance equity suit his for benefits policy payments of an insurance ration company it the fraud of the was de- ground on under assignee An Toucey. Toucey’s privity cided sought relitigate him a state with same issues de- original The federal court which entered the court. bill enjoined supplemental reconsideration “retrial, cree readjudication” prosecution and the or issues settled of the state action.21 Enjoin Pro Federal Courts Taylor Willis, Power of See Warren,
ceedings
Courts, (1933)
1169,1176. Cf.
in State
42 Yale L. J.
Interference,
(1930)
Rev.
Federal
Court
43 Harv. L.
and State
Cong.,
Sess., (1910), p.
Report
20 Senate
No.
61st
2d
Equitable
Toucey York
16, 20;
F.
New
Ins.
2d
Cf.
Life
Wert,
Assur. Soc.
Both decrees should be affirmed.24
The Chief and Me. Justice concur Justice Robeets in this dissent. F. 2d denied, cert. 23See, understanding complexities already for an of the issues Bridge Co.,
settled: Bechtel Trust Co. Supp. v. Iowa-Wisconsin 19 F. 127; Savings Bridge First Co., Trust & Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin 98 F. Corp. 2d Bridge Phoenix Finance 115 F. Iowa-Wisconsin 2d 1. 24 might recognized It merely be noted that 265 is as limitation general equity powers, Apple, Smith v. while the U. S. jurisdiction Act, enjoin. Norris-LaGuardia is a denial of Stat. jurisdiction “No court of States . . shall issue United . have any injunction involving growing . . in a . case or out of labor dispute, except .. .”