*1 County Adams the circuit court The judgment instructions is remanded the cause reversed, in con- be may conducted further such proceedings with this formity opinion. with directions. remanded,
Reversed (No. 34546 . Kahl, Ap Colin Admr. of Estate W. James,
Lewis Com vs. Grand Trunk Railroad pellant, Western pany, Appellee.
Opinion September filed *2 Davis, JJ., dissenting. Schaefer, Hershey, A. DoorRy, of for Chicago, appellant. Jamrs Winston, of Strawn, Chicago, Smith & Pattrrson, (Grrard E. Grashorn, Edward Wrndrow, J. counsel,) for appellee.
Mr. Bristow delivered the opinion Justicr court:
This court has allowed leave to from appeal an Ap- pellate Court judgment affirming dismissal of a supple- mental complaint and the denial of a motion to enjoin the defendant railroad from enforcing injunction it obtained in Michigan restraining plaintiff M. Lois then Kahl, ad- death her wrongful from
ministratrix, proceeding County. Cook court of the superior court, the Illinois essentially whether The are issues in- death action jurisdiction wrongful having prior an out- must recognize stituted a nonresident plaintiff, injunction proceed- restraining of-State court, the Illinois with that and whether action; action, may death its wrongful protect from en- junction a counterin restraining issue of her in the its forcing against plaintiff residence. are to these issues un- facts pertaining operative Plaintiff,
controverted. M. administratrix Kahl, Lois her estate, deceased husband’s instituted suit against Grand Trunk defendant, Western Railroad Company, February 16, under Death Act (Mich. Wrongful Ann., sec. 27.712) Stat. the death of her husband on Februaty 16, allegedly *3 the of the through defendant railroad. negligence Defend- obtained, ant without notice to a in- plaintiff, temporary junction in Cass County, resided, where Michigan, plaintiff from her restraining Illinois action. prosecuting Plaintiff filed a thereupon supplemental the complaint Illinois court, that defendant had failed alleging to question plaintiff’s in the proceed Illinois court by appropriate motion therein; that plaintiff believed that she could not a fair obtain trial in Cass County, that such Michigan; suit Michigan was instituted by defendant to prevent plain- tiff from a fair trial obtaining in the Illinois courts and to force her into- an unjust settlement of her cause of action, and would result in irreparable injury.
On the basis of these allegations, plaintiff moved a injunction temporary the enjoining enforcement of the Michigan injunction. On August 9, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion, and also dismissed her supple- or counteraffidavits no answer although mental complaint, Plaintiff therewith. in connection filed by were the trial court affirmed Court and Appellate appealed, on May 21, 1957. injunction Michigan from the did
Plaintiff not appeal not have would bond was learned that appeal when Thereafter, plaintiff effect proceedings. staying by issued a attachment body was arrested pursuant counsel, of defendant’s court on Michigan application that she was advised would imprisoned and O’Connor, injunction. unless she for contempt complied then wrote her Illinois attorney she h> discharg- Although him him to withdraw her case directing courts, Illinois she advised him that the letter subsequently true did not her but had been desires, coerced express threat of defendant’s imprisonment by counsel. second injunction
A suit was instituted by defendant in Cass County, did Michigan. Plaintiff and was appear and an order defaulted, was entered on July 17, her from further enjoining prosecuting her Illinois action her to withdraw directing it.
Thereafter, on September 6, a 1957, upon showing defendant’s attorney was insisting a plaintiff sign tO'dismiss her stipulation proceedings, Justice this court entered an order restraining defendant from further taking action against plaintiff on the two Michigan suits, “or other any suit filed said Court of Cass County, inor Michigan, other any Court, until the Court of Illinois Supreme has acted Petition for to Appeal.” Leave On September 20, denied defendant’s motion to vacate that restraining order, allowed the petition for leave to appeal, entered a *4 similar injunction restraining defendant until this court disposed case.
On the same day, defendant’s counsel, O’Connor, who is filed County, Michigan, for Cass attorney prosecuting also remove County to Cass petition probate 26, On 1957, September as administratrix. plaintiff ad- removed County plaintiff Cass court of probate as admini- Adam Greenawalt ministratrix appointed succeed her. strator to that indicates filed affidavit,
Greenawalt’s circuit court of Cass o-fthe he is is bailiff years age, he was that administrator being appointed County; estate that the counsel, O’Connor, defendant’s advised he railroad; a cause of action have might against him an and instructed to consult with attorney contacted but this did desire handle attorney O’Connor, advised that he case, Greenawalt O’Connor whereupon desired to retain of Cass asked County counsel outside to have Donahue, O’Connor another attorney contact Donahue turned the county, him. matter over to his who instituted assistant, Drew, Cass County behalf Greenawalt as administrator of the estate. On November was W. Lewis appointed James to succeed Greenawalt as administrator, in Greenawalt’s letter his he successor stated that he had not even talked to Drew about the case, and all for Drew arrangements the claim represent the railroad against were made defendant railroad’s attorney O’Connor.
With reference to- these circumstances, railroad takes the position it did not violate the in- temporary junctive order of September 20, because the act of its Michigan attorney in having removed as ad- ministratrix was taken by O’Connor as at- prosecuting torney Cass County, Michigan, despite defendant’s re- to defer quest such action. Defendant also explained that O’Connor advised defendant that he intended to prosecute the petition for plaintiff’s removal on his own, irrespective railroad’s instructions, since under his contract with
361 his over prevail would officer as his duties public defendant, even that contends defendant Moreover, counsel. as duties that proceeding, removal had instituted railroad if the this the terms of of a violation constitute not would action court’s order. an un- she had that argues
On appeal court; in the Illinois the action to- file questionable an of jurisdiction obtained a court has prior that where defendant from to relief is injunctive prevent action, proper an action elsewhere through the action transferring the full-faith-and-credit forum; and that neither another the Illinois comity respect nor court clause require of the venue statute and the decision Michigan Michigan this case. however, that this court will not, argues, aid a citizen of another by counterinjunction, State an violate injunction in Illi- against action prosecuting nois counter ; injunction justified cannot be to pro- tect the injunction of the prior Illinois since injunction was personam only; and that such junction counterin would compel party vested give up and would rights violate the full-faith-and-credit and due- process clauses of the Federal constitution.
The precise issues of effect operative of an out-o-f- on pending and the litigation, of propriety the issuance aof counterinjunction involved herein, have never been adjudicated by this court. in re- Consequently, solving those issues we shall consider not only cases of jurisdictions other relied as precedent, but the relevant of policies this jurisdiction underlying issues, well as the wealth of law and comment by courts and scholars who have wrestled with the legal of this strategem battle over the selection of the proper forum for Place trial. of Trial in Civil Actions, Harv. L. Rev. 61 1217; Yale L. 43 J. 1206; Minn. L. Rev. 6 494; et A.L.R.2d seq.’,
'362 HarV, etseq.) et seq.; A.L.R.
122 A.L.R. Rev. Pa.U. L. Rev. uncontroverted it is case instant In the parties, had proper trial clause the full-faith-and-credit bound under it was Act Death the Wrongful to recognize constitution Federal entertain plaintiff’s refuse to and could Michigan, the wrongful based on that was ground Bank National (First statute a sister death State. *6 ed Lines, Inc., Air 396, U.S. L. v. United Chicago 96 342 Miles 1212; Fetter, 609, ed. Hughes 441; v. U.S. L. 341 95 ed. Illinois Railroad 86 Co., 698, v. Central U.S. L. 703, 315 it is the Moreover, undisputed 61 Yale 1129; 1206.) L. J. this residents and of to its courts to open State policy keep National (Wintersteen Cooperage nonresidents alike. v. Co., Pryor, Woodenware Ill. Ill. Opp v. 95; 361 294 In that case connection, court in the Wintersteen 538.) at stated “Neither p. 101: does the fact that the is plaintiff a non-resident him of his the courts deprive remedy of this State. There is no statute in the redress denying State of grievances reason by of non-residence. of policy our has State been always to of permit persons regardless residence to- bring suits our courts. has never Citizenship been a condition precedent to the of an individual to sue in our courts. [Citations]”
Where, however, suits nonresidents have no con nection whatever with this jurisdiction, and the selection this forum is purely vexatious, court has held, pur suant to the authorization by the United States Supreme Court (Missouri ex rel. Southern Railway Co. v. Mayfield, U.S. 1, ed. 3) L. that the doctrine 340 non 95 forum conveniens may be invoked to dismiss such cases (Cotton v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co., Ill.2d 144.) 14 the instant case, however, no such defense of non forum conveniens was interposed by defendant. Instead, sought to remove the case from the Illinois court by enjoining
363 from prosecuting her residence in the State action. we while injunction, to the Michigan reference With a court assertion that defendant’s repeated with agree quite its jurisdic within restrain persons has power of equity actions with foreign or instituting proceeding tion (Cole 6 ed. 538; Cunningham, v. U.S. 33 133 the exercise of such note that power we 896), A.L.R.2d delicacy, matter of courts has been deemed a great by equity conflicts distressing with restraint avoid great invoked interference jurisdiction. Am. and reciprocal Jur. v. Pullman, 20; Royal League Harris v. Ill. 451; Ill. Kavanagh, O'Loughlin O’Loughlin, v. 175; A.2d Boston and Maine Railroad v. Co. N.J. Whitehead, Mass. N.E.2d
Illinois has
consistently followed
course of refusing
restrain the
of a
instituted action
prosecution
prior
pend
in a sister
unless a clear
re
equity
presented
quiring
the court to
a manifest
interposition
prevent
and injustice; and neither
wrong
a difference of remedy
afforded
domicile
forum nor mere incon
venience and
expense
will constitute
defending
grounds
for such an injunction.
(Western Union
Co. v.
Telegraph
*7
and Atlantic Telegraph Co.,
Ill.
Harris
90;
v.
Pacific
49
Pullman,
20;
Ill.
Thorndike
Thorndike,
v.
;
Ill.
84
142
450
Royal League v. Kavanagh,
Ill.
Illinois
175, 183;
233
Life
Prentiss,
Ins. Co. v.
Ill.
Mobile and
383;
Ohio Railroad
277
Parrent,
v.Co.
Conversely, where other States have enjoined litigants proceeding a previously instituted Illinois action, this jurisdiction has followed the overwhelming judicial
364 nor clause full-faith-and-credit neither the
opinion such recognition comity require compulsory rules the disposition or to abate preclude so injunctions sec. Laws, 450, Restatement, Conflict case. pending Atchison v. Taylor 21 860; 503; 534; p. C.J.S. 43 C.J.S. Ill. Co., 457; App. amd Fe Railway Santa Topeka 292 Kleinschmidt, 539; Kleinschmidt v. Ill. App. Alford 343 102, 61 Mo. Railway App. Wabash Co. (Lindsey) v. 229 Railway and Union 369, 277; S.W.2d S.W.2d Pacific 73 v. Kepner 161; Minn. N.W. Rule, v. 302, Co. 155 193 Co. Railway Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Chicago St. Louis cert, 564; denied 280 U.S. 299, Mo. 825, S.W.2d 322 15 Co. Island Railway Rock and Chicago, v. Frye Pacific 157 cert, Minn. denied Leet 52, 629, 723; N.W. U.S. 195 263 64, P.2d Railway v. Union Co. Cal.2d. 605, Pacific 144 25 P.2d ex v. subsequent Bossung rel. 42; State opinion 155 District Court, Peterson Minn. 168 N.W. v. and Minn. Chicago, Burlington Quincy Co. Railway Railroad N.W. v. Northern 823; Doyle Pacific Co. F.2d refusing effect o-ut to an recognize give legal
of-State nonresidents from restraining prosecut a previously instituted the Illinois case, Appel late Court in Taylor Fe v. Atchison Topeka Santa Railway Co., Ill. relied v. App. 457, Alford Wabash Railway Co. Mo. App. 102, S.W.2d where Missouri court clearly majority expressed rule. The court reiterated the ain language prior hearing of the case (Alford (Lindsey) Wabash v. Co. 61 Railway S.W.2d 369) stated: “Defendant’s first is that point the court below erred in to- refusing abate this suit on account of the injunction. There is no question but that the circuit court of Morgan had County to issue injunction in a case of this kind [citation], but the de cisions are in conflict as to whether the court wherein the suit is pending, prosecution of which is to be sought *8 by the suit abate or stay proceedings will enjoined, it is not because so, If it does injunction. of such an reason but solely to act, it SO' requires Federal constitution of the comity. ground upon [Citation.] attached having to County proceed Daviess court of circuit of comity rule of no we know injunction, before the proceed discontinue below to the court require would in this case.” ings Court, District v. ex rel. Bossung
Similarly, court held Minnesota 494, 589, Minn. N.W. injunc- of the out-of-State of the that irrespective propriety with the local tion restraining proceeding a writ of could be action, local court compelled death mandamus to> with the wrongful proceed pending further noted based The court a foreign statute. if it the case because refrained from proceeding the injunction a sister such State, issued a court of would Minnesota substantial control over given litigation.
It would serve no' discuss each of the afore- purpose mentioned which are in citations, note, accord. Suffice there is for the negligible authority recognition foreign injunctions in the local where the case is pending (39 Yale Rev. as 719), urged by defendant. such a
Although injunction was foreign recognized the grounds of comity by the court in Fisher v. Mississippi Mutual Ins. Co., 112 Miss. cited So. Pacific Life by defendant, that decision was rejected specifically authority by the court in the case, and has not had Bossung wide approbation in other jurisdictions.
Defendant also cites the cases Appellate Court of Kleinschmidt v. Kleinschmidt, Ill. App. 539, Allen v. Chicago Great Western Co., Railroad Ill. App. but it is not clear how can they be deemed to support defendant’s position. In the Kleinschmidt case the court stated that it was required such recognize out-of- *9 the court do so out and while might injunction,
State the validity in affect way no failure to do-so would comity, the cause, the of the merits its decision. In considering had the merits previously on held that since litigation court be should court instituted in the Florida been the cause. to with the disposition proceed permitted case, the Allen where in can take Nor comfort in a the merits an on had commenced State, sister and such action was pending, plaintiff while Illinois, in similar action the identical cause instituted a Court which defendant and Illinois enjoined, Appellate held that it was abuse defendant’s deny of discretion the deter- motion to continue Illinois action pending mination in the sister o-f cause State. original it the issuance of
Clearly, both of those cases was the o-ut-of-State but the institution of injunction, prior cause of original action in another that deterred State courts from them. Appellate Conse- adjudicating those decisions quently, lend conten- authority plaintiff’s tion that a court which first of the jurisdiction obtains merits aof cause should be to- retain it until permitted the cause is finally adjudicated, without interference courts of other States. In the Allen fact, case reaffirms and quotes from the case, where Kmanagh that rule is at stated' : p. 183 “A person has the to select such right tribunal juris- having diction as he chooses for the prosecution of his and rights, the court which first obtains jurisdiction will retain it. Such jurisdiction cannot be defeated because the defendant may another prefer tribunal in which he supposes decision will be more favorable to him.”
In the instant case the Michigan injunction was ap- issued parently pursuant to the of the policy embodied in a venue statute venue in suits restricting against railroads to the county which plaintiff resides, if the railroad lines traverse that county. Mich. Complied Laws, 1948, sec. 610.1. adjudge of this not the it is province
While statute, may venue the Michigan constitutionality actions to transitory confining statutes that similar noted held uncon have been residence of plaintiff’s the State Co. v. Railway Fe and Topeka Santa (Atchison stitutional. Iron, Coal, Tennessee ed. Sowers, U.S. L. ed. 997.) George, Railroad Co. v. U.S. at case the court stated p. Company In the Tennessee Coal a state cannot “But venue no- of the right; part 360: time the same of action and at create a cause transitory cause of action transitory to sue on that destroy is to be jurisdiction. That any having cannot creation, determined the court’s law of be defeated the extraterritorial of a statute operation *10 another even it created the of action.” state, though
In of this we cannot light reasoning, escape that if observation statutes or prohibiting circumscribing of causes export of action not be may extraterritorial given it is hard see effect, to an why decree should be en- equity titled to any greater A court be recognition. subject should to same limitations. Harv. Rev. L. 1245; 43 Harv. Rev. 157,
Therefore, is evident that consistency, as well legal as the of weight authority, do us require to recognize the Michigan and we injunction, may retain jurisdiction and with proceed plaintiff’s death wrongful action. Such a course, however, is not practicable in the instant case, unless plaintiff, who is subject to imprisonment and other tactics coercive if she fails to dismiss her Illinois action, is protected by enjoining defendant from enforcing Michigan injunction by contempt A proceedings.
cannot or expected required to risk imprisonment so that the court may retain jurisdiction of a cause.
This us to brings the ultimate issue this case: whether the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the and parties of the merits of the cause can issue a injunction counter re- an out-of-State from enforcing a before it party
straining cause the local the dismissal requires which injunction jurisdiction. the forum of ousts a court the basic principle There no with is quarrel over its jurisdiction to as well as protect has a duty, power, and final justice decree controversy complete in order to may issue parties between in other courts. restraining proceedings purpose, C.J.S. Beebe, York National Bank New v. City 499; 902; 1425; A.L.R. N.Y.S.2d A.L.R.2d Am. Jur. 435. reason claims that there is no however, Defendant, invoke this in the instant since the case principle this injunction in interferes way no but affects the In thereof merely litigants. support in per- defendant cites the acts equitable maxim, “equity sonaminvoked since the and Bacon to of Coke days obviate conflicts courts, between law and open equity the general have the principle equity courts power those amenable prevent to their in- own process or stituting on suits in other which re- carrying will States sult in or injury fraud. these applying instant we principles cáse, cannot
close our eyes to the fact that the intended effect Michigan injunction, at directed though and not parties at court, is to prevent Illinois court from adjudicat- a cause of action of which it had jurisdiction. proper For it patent that if the are litigants coerced to dismiss *11 the Illinois action, it is our rightfully acquired jurisdiction that is thereby destroyed. the Therefore, injunc- tion was in but form everything an order the restraining Illinois court and the determining cases it may properly try.
In determining whether a counterin junction bemay is sued to protect our jurisdiction from such interference, we note that such counterin junctions were authorized by the courts in Chicago Milwaukee Paul St. Railway Co. v. Burling Chicago Peterson v. in Schendel, Fed. N.W. Minn. Co., Railway and Quincy ton Minnesota case the In the Schendel cited by plaintiff. filed an F.E.L.A. originally in which district en cause, its jurisdiction in order to action, protect in an Iowa from enforcing railroad the joined from and the witnesses which restrained plaintiff junction its The basis for action. Minnesota participating court having “The federal is stated at decision p. 334: retain and such jurisdiction pro had right acquired determination of it from interference until the tect interfere by state had preventing cause. no right thus de from testimony witnesses giving practically If federal of the federal court to act. stroying power courts under such circumstances cannot their juris protect diction they justice.” become as instrumentalities of impotent a
Similarly, also held entitled to State was issue counterin junction a jurisdiction its prior protect interference by the injunctive of a sister process State issued v. against (Peterson plaintiff. Chicago Burlington and Quincy Co., Railroad Minn. 235, N.W. 823.) Peterson case the Minnesota court in which State plaintiff commenced her action ordered the de- F.E.L.A. fendant railroad to dismiss its Iowa injunction proceedings restraining administrator estate from maintaining a death action in Minnesota in any or other State. we
Although recognize these cases involved actions and F.E.L.A. Federal rights, nevertheless, since the determinative factor in the issuance of the counter injunc- tion each case was not the nature claim asserted, rather but the protection of the court’s prior a over transitory we action, those regard cases as relevant authorities. Moreover, are they in accordance with the policy set forth in the Kavanagh case at p. 183, proclaiming person’s “to select such tribunal having jurisdiction as he chooses of his prosecution rights, *12 370 first obtains which the court the right it.” retain by defendant, denying cited authority relevant
The only ex rel. in is State junction, the counter to issue the power Nortoni, Railroad v.Co. and St. Louis Chicago New York therein filed an Plaintiff Mo. S.W.2d 764, 55 331 after defendant court, Missouri and, in the F.E.L.A. from an in Indiana restraining plaintiff procured enjoin Missouri case, plaintiff sought that prosecuting the Indiana contempt proceed- from enforcing Crandall, re In the basis of The Missouri on ings. resident bemay enjoined that a F.2d holding 969, 53 States, in other reasoned that an case F.E.L.A. prosecuting to entertain the injunc- Indiana court had power since decree was therefore valid and en- its tion proceeding, which should not be en- forcable contempt proceedings, The Missouri court rule quoted joined. applicable that where the jurisdic- law at “It is familiar law p. 274: court and of a tion right party prosecute therein have once attached, that cannot be proceeding right arrested or taken away by another court.” proceedings
In the decision as it is evaluating precedent, apparent that since re first Crandall no the law, longer represents and a a resident may enjoin from prosecut- action in another F.E.L.A. State or Federal court (Miles v. Central Co., Railroad U.S. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. v. Kepner, U.S. 28; Pope ed. v. Atlantic L. Coast Railroad Co., Line U.S. ed. 749), S. Ct. Indiana injunction, recognized protected by Missouri court, would now be deemed improper. Furthermore, while the Missouri the Nortoni case enunciated “familiar law,” it failed to properly apply law, and overlooked completely fact that the jurisdiction of the Missouri court attached even to the prior Indiana injunction proceed- ing, to that according “familiar law” the not have should Missouri action to prosecute in another away by proceedings “arrested or taken been inconsistency of the in the light Consequently, court.” the case law of in the change as well its reasoning, value of doubtful case is the Nortoni which it is based, *13 aas precedent. by cited the cases how we cannot
Moreover, perceive enjoin not litigation will that Illinois holding con- defendant’s the merits other support pending States in the be denied should junction that the counter tention court should the Illinois contrary, instant case. On the its accords jurisdiction entitled to same for respect in the absence of such States, courts of other and respect, from jurisdiction unjustifiable should be able to its protect It one interference the courts of other is by thing States. for Illinois have against enjoining litiga- policy pending tion on the merits in other in the absence of States, cogent but it is im- equitable grounds, quite another to stand by and see a in a case of which the Illinois potently litigant, court has jurisdiction prior forced an out- merits, of-State to dismiss that cause of legitimate no reason other than that defendant would pre- fer to defend the lawsuit elsewhere. Reluctance to be an is not with interloper synonymous abdication.
In the instant case, furthermore, this court would not only be deprived jurisdiction, but would be required to remain oblivious defendant’s coercive tactics of having removed as administratrix of her husband’s estate as punishment for her with proceeding and action, superseded by administrator who was not only friendly to defendant, but who selected counsel to prosecute estate’s claim against defendant, subject to defendant’s ap- proval Neither direction. the Federal nor constitution, -, comity requires such abdication. The Illinois court is not so barren of authority, nor so calcified its reasoning, as to cower behind the equitable and to parrot, in personam,” acts “equity maxim that and not the litigants that it is only defendant urges, interfered being of this jurisdiction entitled to are recognize injunction. We by Michigan we and unless jurisdiction, our destroys that their coercion say it is idle to coercion, from such can the litigant protect jurisdiction. our we can protect if Illinois were authorities, analysis our Under transitory or other any forum to try this, not the appropriate inter- conveniens could be non the defense oí action, forum would dismiss the Illinois court meritorious, if and, posed, not, not, need will However, case. has its of which it try cases, countenance having the courts of other jurisdiction, determined by proper are injunctive only their We States, process. through such free to injunctions, disregard out-of-State the merits of the but we can adjudicate action, pro- pending tect our such issuance usurpation of a counterin enforcement junction restraining *14 injunction. out-of-State
It was therefore trial error for the court to dismiss her a plaintiff’s and motion for supplemental complaint and its the counterinjunction, and the order, of judgment Appellate Court must it, be reversed and the cause affirming remanded to the trial court to in accordance with proceed the views in this expressed opinion.
Reversed and remanded, with directions. Mr. Schaefer, dissenting: Justice injunction Michigan to have been appears based the (1) venue upon statute of that which requires that an against railroad be in the brought county of the plaintiff’s residence if the railroad’s lines traverse that county, and (2) upon as allegations to impossibility the compelling attendance of witnesses in and Illinois the added expense inconvenience of the action trying in Illinois. On the authority Atchison, Topeka & Santa ed. Sowers, U.S. L. Co. v. Railway Fe U.S. George, v.Co. Iron, & Railroad Coal, Tennessee is not Illinois concedes ed. 997, 354, 58 the venue Michigan credit to full faith to give required to give is required however, It urges, statute. Michi the issued injunction credit to faith and full court. gan like the in situations majority
I agree in personam” maxim acts “equity the useful one, present full upon tell the story. By concentrating does it injunction effect overlooks purpose immediate that it must achieve which it and the result was sought it Chancellor, if is to its When accomplish purpose. in Bacon’s the successful from enforc- day, enjoined party he had the end result obtained at judgment law, anwas interference with the of the law courts. processes same if way, injunction accomplishes its of the Illinois have purpose, courts will operation been interfered with. It is this inevitable interference with of the operation courts of sister that has States largely this court’s prompted reluctance to authorize the issuance such injunctions. And think that I this inevitable inter- has ference a bearing the claim such under the recognition full-faith-and-credit clause. far as So I have been able to ascertain, no court has held yet that such an injunction is entitled full faith and credit in the sense that the action toward which the injunction is directed must be abated. When such injunc tions have been recognized, has been because the State in which the action is has pending chosen to do so as a matter of comity, and not because it was required to do so by constitutional command. Allen v. Great Chicago West ern Railroad Co. Ill. App. Odom v. Langston, *15 (W.D. Mo.) F. Supp. 651; Fisher v. Mutual Pacific Insurance Co. 112 Miss 30, Life So. 846; Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Gex’s Estate, Miss. 577, 186 So. like injunctions that to agree courts appear
While the it has been credit, faith and to full not entitled one are this the is injunction adjudication the suggested to be sued it not seeking of the party equitable right and credit. to full faith so is entitled the foreign Laws, Conflict Goodrich, Yale cf. 95; (See 33 L.J. the view The Restatement ed., agrees sec. 218.) 3rd In sec. Conflicts, the courts. 450.) taken (Restatement, to rest the that to recog- view ground part appears upon the claim of enjoining nize is to injunction recognize action, cause of to exclusive of a transitory State cognizance Harv. which constitutional privileges. (17 might abridge Harv. Pa. 429.) U. 57,' L.R. L.R. L.R. to rest that to recognize part appears upon ground injunction would “mean effect the courts of one can control what on in Iowa (42 another.” goes L.R. For these reasons 199.) I with the majority agree not entitled to full faith Michigan credit.
But the question in this issue case beyond goes step to full faith and credit. is here is a What counter- sought injunction to restrain the in- railroad from enforcing junction entered The difficulties court. Michigan that attend the kind of injunction that the entered were stated “If long ago by Chancellor Walworth: this court should sustain an injunction bill to restrain pro- ceedings previously commenced in a state, sister of that state retaliate might was who complainant, defendant in the suit there; and, by attachment, process might him to compel relinquish suit com- subsequently menced here. By this course of the courts of proceeding, different states would be indirectly into collision brought with each other in regard and the jurisdiction; rights of suitors might be lost sight in a useless struggle what might considered the legitimate and rights powers *16 Peck Chan. 1831) Merritt and (N.Y. v. (Mead courts.” of initial to an said with respect was there What Paige 402. to a counterinjunction. force with added injunction applies so the second second, sired first injunction as the Just end is not foreseeable. third. The sire a ultimate might kind judicial disorder unseemly The place stop The one is peculiar where begins. preference not, venue in a class of cases does for a particular single interference it seems to afford a basis for indirect with me, jurisdiction. in another The salutary pending litigation of a court of restrain the power equity to prosecution actions in a and de inequitable foreign originated more substantial But we are upon considerations. veloped not called to review the propriety Michigan injunction. Plaintiff did not seek to review it in the Michi courts. While gan venue are statutes usually permissive, Michigan’s special with provision to actions respect against railroads appears require such actions be brought only a particular county. (Pere Marquette Railway Co. Slutz, v. Mich. N.W. 458.) Michigan its statute applied to a administrator. Illi nois has no connection whatever with the occurrences out of which the administrator’s claim arose. The policy of Illinois respect to maintenance of foreign death wrongful actions was expressed section 2 Injuries Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 70, par. which 2,) prohibited them. While it is true that this prohibition is no longer effective, that it policy expressed also of significance deter mining whether or not a counterin junction should have been issued. think
I that the trial court and the Court Appellate were right, so I would affirm.
Hershey and Davis, JJ., join in this dissent.