Dunn v. Clarke - 33 U.S. 1 (1834)
U.S. Supreme Court
Dunn v. Clarke, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 1 1 (1834)
Dunn v. Clarke
33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 1
Jurisdiction. The complainants filed their bill in the circuit Court of Ohio, praying for an injunction to a judgment in an ejectment and for a conveyance of the premises. All the complainants were residents in the State of Ohio, and so were the defendants. The judgment was obtained in the circuit court by G., a citizen of Virginia, and the defendant Clark holds the land recovered under the will of G. in trust.
No doubt is entertained that jurisdiction may be sustained so far as to stay execution at law against D. He is the representative of Graham, and although he is a citizen of Ohio, yet this fact, under the circumstances, will not deprive this court of an equitable control over the judgment. But beyond this the decree of this Court cannot extend.
Of the action at law, the circuit court had jurisdiction, and no change in the residence or condition of the parties can take away a jurisdiction which has once attached. If G. had lived, the circuit court might have issued an injunction to his judgment at law without a personal service of process, except on his counsel, and as D. is his representative, the court may do the same thing as against him. The injunction bill is not considered an original bill between the same parties, as at law, but if other parties are made to the bill and different interests involved, it must be considered, to that
extent at least, an original bill, and the jurisdiction of the circuit court must depend upon the citizenship of the parties.
Several persons are made defendants who were not parties or privies to the suit at law, and no jurisdiction as to them can be exercised by this or the circuit court. But as there appear to be matters of equity in the case which may be investigated by a state court, it would be reasonable and just to stay all proceedings on the judgment until the complainants shall have time to seek relief from a state court.
This case was submitted to the Court as a question whether the Court had jurisdiction in the same.