SIDNEY J. BROOKS, RECEIVER, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
EMPIRE TRUST COMPANY ET AL.

U.S. | 1917-12-17
No. 697
245 U.S. 634 Supreme Court of the United States (1917) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47; Gregory v. Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643; St. Louis, K. C. & C. R. R. Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 217 U. S. 247, 250; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561; (2) Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545; Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47, 60; Carey v. Houston & Texas Central R. Co., 161 U. S. 115.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1980)
    …85 (1939); Penn Gen. Cas. Co. v. Pennsylvania ex rel. Schnader, 294 U.S. 189, 196, 55 S.Ct. 386, 79 L.Ed. 850 (1935); Empire Trust Co. v. Brooks, 232 F. 641 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 243 U.S. 655, 37 S.Ct. 480, 61 L.Ed. 948 (1916), appeal dismissed, 245 U.S. 634, 38 S.Ct. 133, 62 L.Ed. 522 (1917); United States v. Allen, 328 F. 2d 377 (5th Cir. 1964). “Courts have been anxious to prevent direct interference without forcing one tribunal to be overly cautious about the possibility that a prior suit in another…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw