HAINES ET AL.
v.
CARPENTER ET AL.

U.S. | 1875-10-01
91 U.S. 254 Supreme Court of the United States (1875) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 23 L. Ed. 345 · 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1357 · SCDB 1875-058
Cited by 48 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 Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a bill in equity that sought to enjoin proceedings in state courts and consolidate disputes before the federal circuit court. The Court held that federal courts are statutorily prohibited from enjoining state court litigation except in cases involving bankruptcy, and that the plaintiff's alternative argument based on multiplicity of suits lacked merit where only three distinct suits with separate grounds and different claimants were involved.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Bradley

Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court.

A mere statement of the bill is sufficient to show that it cannot be sustained. Whilst it undoubtedly presents some matters of equitable consideration, they are so mixed up with others of a different character, or which cannot be entertained by the Circuit Court of the United - States, and which constitute the main object and purpose of the suit, as to make the bill essentially bad on demurrer. In the first place, the great object of the suit is to enjoin and 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, 1798, it was declared that a writ of injunction shall not be granted to stay proceedings in a, State court. This, prohibition is repeated in sect. 720 of the Revised Statutes, and extends to all cases except where otherwise provided by the Bankrupt Law. This objection alone is sufficient ground for sustaining the demurrer to the bill. In the next place, the claim that the court ought to interfere on account of multiplicity of .suits is manifestly unfounded. Only three suits are specified for this purpose in the bill, and each of these has a distinct object, founded on a distinct ground, and is instituted by a distinct class of claimants, who hád a. perfect right to institute the suit they did. The-State courts have full and ample jurisdiction of the cases, and no sufficient reason appears for interfering with their proceedings. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

  • Prentis v. Atl. Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1908)
  • Toucey v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1941)
    …ently, there was no occasion to consider the applicability of § 265. The “first come, first served” rationale of cases like Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, was discarded in Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, 235. Cf. Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 257. There is no warrant for the assumption that, in the proposals for the Judicial Code of 1911, Congress had before it the “relitigation” exception as settled doctrine, and that by § 265 gave it legislative confirmation. The Report of the Specia…
  • In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1887)

Previewing 3 of 23 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