UNITED STATES
v.
PARKHURST-DAVIS MERCANTILE COMPANY

U.S. | 1900-02-26
No. 130
176 U.S. 317 Supreme Court of the United States (1900) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 44 L. Ed. 485 · 20 S. Ct. 423 · 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1739 · SCDB 1899-123
Cited by 16 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The United States sought to enjoin the Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Company from proceeding in Kansas state court, alleging that Indian reservation lands were exempt from state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the bill, holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state court proceedings except in bankruptcy matters, as prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brewer,

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

It is conceded by counsel for the Government that so much of the bill as alleges that by treaties with the Pottawatomie Indians and the act admitting Kansas into the Unión the reservation was excluded from the State and from, the jurisdiction of Kansas, is erroneous, and' may be ignored.

Section 6 of the act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, c. 119, supra, contains this provision:

“ Each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to th© laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside.”

Upon these admissions and facts the case comes clearly within the provision of section, 720 of the Revised Statutes, to the effect that no writ of injunction shall be granted by a court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State except in matters of bankruptcy. Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 257. In this latter casó, Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

“ In the first place, the great object of the suit is to enjoin ahd. stop litigation in the state courts, and to bring all the litigated questions before the Circuit Court. This is one of the things which the Federal courts are expressly prohibited from doing. By the act of March 2, 1793, it was declared that a writ of - injunction shall ^not be granted to stay proceedings in a state court. This prohibition is repeated in sec. 720 of the Revised Statutes, and extends to all cases except where otherwise provided by the bankrupt law.”

Without stopping to consider any other questions presented by counsel this is súfficient to sustain the ruling of the Circuit Court,,and the decree is

Affirmed

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Prentis v. Atl. Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1908)
  • Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1920)
    …stay proceedings in a state court in the sense of that provision? If it is, the District Court erred in not dismissing the bill on that ground. Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Co., 176 U. S. 317. If it is not, the court rightly entertained the suit and proceeded to an adjudication of the merits, for the citizenship of the [*183] parties and the amount in controversy were within thé jurisdictional requirements. The provision has been in for…
  • Hull v. Burr, 234 U.S. 712 (U.S. 1914)
    …ggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 257; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158, 172; United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Co., 176 U. S. 317, 320 Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 205 U. S. 322, 338; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210, 226. It is recognized, however, that § 720 was not intended to limit the- power of the Federal courts to enforce their authority in cases that…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw