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
Page 33 U. S. 2
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.
MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The complainants in the court below filed their bill praying for
an injunction to a judgment recovered against them in an action of
ejectment, and to obtain a decree for a conveyance of the land in
controversy. All the complainants are residents of the State of
Ohio, and so are the defendants.
The judgment at law was obtained by Graham, a citizen of
Virginia, but who has since deceased, and the defendant, Walter
Dunn, holds the land recovered in trust under the will of
Graham.
On this state of facts a question is raised whether this Court
have jurisdiction of the cause. This question seems not to have
been made in the circuit court.
No doubt is entertained by the Court that jurisdiction of the
case may be sustained so far as to stay execution on the judgment
at law against Dunn. 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.
Page 33 U. S. 3
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 Graham 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 Dunn is his representative, the court may do the same thing
as against him. The injunction bill is not considered an original
bill between he same parties as at law, but if other parties are
made in 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.
In the present case, 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, this Court thinks 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.
And the court directs that all proceedings be thus stayed and that
the decree of the circuit court be modified so as to conform to
this view of the case.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of
Ohio, and was argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the
opinion of this Court that in the present case, several persons are
made defendants who were not parties or privies to the suit at law,
and that no jurisdiction 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, this Court thinks 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, and it so orders and decrees. And the Court further
orders that the decree of the circuit court be reformed so as to
conform to the opinion of this Court.