Equitable Trust Co. v. Pollitz
Equitable Trust Co. v. Pollitz
Opinion of the Court
Assuming that the federal courts have possession of the res, it follows that they should enjoin proceedings in a state court affecting such possession. But questions not involving such possession may properly bejitigated in the court which first acquires jurisdiction. There is nothing in the present record to show any disposition on the part of the state court to go outside its proper province. Indeed, it has already refused to interfere with the litigation in the federal courts. When it changes its attitude, it will be time enough to go into the interesting questions of law presented upon the briefs and to see whether, upon the merits, an injunction should be granted. Now it is sufficient to say that the complainant’s rights are not shown to be in danger.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- EQUITABLE TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. POLLITZ
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Courts (§ 508*)—Conflicting Jurisdiction—Federal and State Courts— Injunction by Federal Court. Where a federal court has possession of the res, it may enjoin proceedings in a state court which affect such possession, but other questions which do not involve or threaten its possession may properly be litigated in the state court which first acquired Jurisdiction. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1418-1423, 1425-1430; Dec. Dig. § 508.* Enjoining proceedings in state courts, see notes to Garner v. Second Nat. Bant, 16- C. C. A. 90; Qentral Trust Co. v. Grantham, 27 C. C. A 575; Copeland v. Bruning, 63 C. C. A. 437.]