51

1. Action in equity for injunction.]-A court of equity may entertain a suit to enjoin the prosecution of an action at law,50 whether in another court or upon the law side of the same court; even to enjoin the prosecution of an equity suit, which is being elsewhere litigated in a court or with parties rendering it impracticable for the resisting defendant to obtain full justice.

In neither classes of cases is relief thus afforded, except on the ground that full and complete justice cannot be obtained in the original action,53 or that by reason of a multiplicity of such actions unreasonable and expensive litigation is prosecuted; 54 but the United States courts cannot enjoin proceedings in the State courts,55 unless it be done either in aid of an assignee in bankruptcy56 or under the carriers' limited liability act,57 or where a receiver appointed in the United States court is sued, and the in

State court is transferred with the cause, and there is thereafter no breach of the bond in not appearing in the State court. The recognizance

is an incident, and follows the principal case. Davis v. South Carolina, 107 U. S. 597, 601; State v. Adler, 67 Ark. 477.

50 See the principle well stated in High, on Injunctions, 4th ed., § 45, p. 62; Northern, etc., Hosiery Co. r. Arnold, 143 N. Y. 265.

51 Ely v. Elliott, 15 Chicago L. N. 66, 14 Rep. 513.

52 Mann v. Flower, 26 Minn. 479; Pond v. Harwood, 139 U. S. 107; Cole v. Cunningham, 133 id. 107; Erie R. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637; Travis v. Myers, 67 N. Y. 542; Moffett v. Tuthill, 4 Hun, 75. Compare, for cases where such relief was denied, Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. McHenry, 9 Abb. N. C. 235; Beekman t. Fletcher, 48 Mich. 156, 12 N. W. Rep. 37.

53 Grant r. Moore, 88 N. C. 77; Drexel v. Berney, 16 Fed. Rep. 522; Bostwick v. Covell, 24 id. 402; Sweeny v. Williams, 36 N. J. Eq. 627; Ely v. Crane, 37 id. 157.

54 Eldridge v. Hill, 2 Johns. Ch. 281; Northern, etc., Hosiery Co. v. Arnold, 143 N. Y. 265; Woods v. Monroe, 17 Mich. 238; Guess v. Stone Mount, etc., R. R., 67 Ga. 216.

55 U. S. R. S., § 720; U. S. v. Parkhurst, Davis, Merc. Co., 176 U. S. 317; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 id. 254; Chapin v. James, 11 R. I. 86.

56 Sargent r. Helton, 115 U. S. 348; White v. Schloerb, 178 id, 542.

57 Pages 823, 824, of this volume.

59

junction is necessary on that account,58 or where the State court proceedings are not independent suits there, but brought to defeat the results of suits in the Federal courts, or where Federal jurisdiction has already attached by reason of proceedings for removal.60

An action brought to enjoin adverse litigation does not however, save, perhaps, in very exceptional cases, turn on any question of jurisdiction, nor oust the jurisdiction of the court, proceedings in which are enjoined, but usually rests upon a recognition of that jurisdiction, and the injunction is not directed to the court or judge, but only to the party.

64

2. Limited liability of ship-owners.61]-An owner of a vessel63 engaged in inter-State or foreign commerce claims on whom are made or apprehended by reason of alleged liability as

58 Act of March 3, 1887, § 3, as amended by Act of Aug. 13, 1888.

59 Deitzsch . Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494; French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Riverdale Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 198 U. S. 188.

60 See p. 790, paragraph 9.

61 For the history of the maritime law and the statutes on this subject, see The Barnstable, 181 U. S. 468, 22 Alb. L. J. 165, 185, 17 id. 286.

As to charterers, see U. S. R. S., § 4286.

62 As to who is such owner or charterer, see Rice r. Ontario S. S. Co., 56 Barb. 384. A charterer is not protected unless he charters, mans, victuals, and navigates the vessel at his own expense.

Carrier, who is neither owner nor charterer, not protected. Hill Mfg. Co. v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 104 Mass. 127. Compare 109 U. S. 578.

Carrier by a through land and water route is protected as to vessels owned by him. Headrick r. Virginia, etc., R. R. Co., 48 Geo. 545.

63 Including foreign vessels. The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540; National Steam Nav. Co. r. Dyer, 118 U. S. 507; In re Leonard, 14 Fed. Rep. 53. "The Scotland," 105 U. S. 24 (except when collision occurs between two vessels of the same foreign nation, or, perhaps, of two foreign nations having the same maritime law).

64 This applies to and includes all sea-going vessels, and, as well, all vessels used on lakes or rivers, or inland navigation; and the term vessels includes canal-boats, barges, and lighters. Re The Annie Faxon, 66 Fed. Rep. 575; The Columbia, 73 id. 226. Fishing vessels are included. Whitcomb r. Emerson, 50 id. 129; also, scows. Re Eastern Dredging Co., 138 id. 943.

The constitutionality of the law was sustained, in respect to vessels plying on navigable rivers, above tide water, by virtue of the maritime jurisdiction of the United States. In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 12 (the court confining its attention carefully to the particular circumstances of the case, and refraining from obiter discussion).

It would seem necessary to invoke the power of the Congress over interstate commerce, if the constitutionality of the act be sustained in its application to waters exclusively within the boundaries of a single state, but utilized with railroad connections for continuous carriage. See The Katie, 40 Fed. Rep. 480.

65 The owner may file his libel for the purpose without waiting till he is saed. The Alpena, 8 Fed. Rep. 280.

owner, 66"for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction by any person, of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture done, occasioned, or incurred without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners,' 1967 may commence an actions in the United States District Court, in order to determine the question whether the ship or its owners are liable at all, and, if liable, whether the owners are entitled to a limitation of liability under the statute known as the Act of 1851.70

69

3. — injunction.] - The District Court has power to issue an injunction against those who are prosecuting an action in a State court to recover against a ship-owner who has brought the proper action in the United States District Court for a limitation of liability."

€6 As to remedy by action against master, officers, and seamen, notwithstanding they may be part owners, see U. S. R. S., § 4287; Craig r. Cont. ins. Co., 141 U. S. 646; Liverpool S.S. Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 id. 397, 440. 67 U. S. R. S., §§ 4283, 4284. See, also, Act of June 26, 1884, chap. 121, § 18, and Act of Feb. 13, 1893, chap. 105.

As to what losses are included, see 22 Alb. L. J. 188.

In re Petition of Vessel Owners' Towing Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 169 (tow-boat injuring abutment of bridge).

National Steam Navig. Co. v. Dyer, 118 U. S. 507 (collision on high seas); The Dumois, 177 U. S. 240 (collision causing death).

In re Old Domin. S.S. Co., 115 Fed. Rep. 845; In re Louisville, etc., Packet Co., 95 id. 996; Headrick r. Virginia, etc., R. R. Co., 48 Geo. 545 (fire).

Knowlton v. Providence, etc., S.S. Co., 53 N. Y. 76 (cargo burned after arrival in port).

In re Goodrich Transp. Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 713 (covers damage done by vessel to buildings on shore- setting them on fire).

The Dumois, 177 U. S. 240; The Amsterdam, 23 Fed. Rep. 112 (claims for damages for personal injuries arising out of the stranding of a vessel, within the provisions of the act). Same point. In re City of Columbus, 22 Fed. Rep. 460.

In re La Burgoyne, 117 Fed. Rep. 261; The Alpena, 8 id. 280 (owner's liability can only be limited as to such loss or damage as occurs on the last voyage preceding the filing of the petition, or on the voyage on which the vessel is lost).

Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104 (collisions as well as injuries to cargo). es Leave is not necessary. Thomassen v. Whitwell, 9 Ben. 458.

69 As to exemption from loss by fire, see U. S. R. S., § 4282.

70 Providence & N. Y. S.S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 595; The Benefactor, 103 id. 239.

71 In re Long Island, etc., Trans. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 629 (The Seawahnaka). One of the points made by the claimants was that the District Court had no power to issue the restraining order in view of Revised Statutes, § 720: "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except where such injunction may be

4. answer or plea.] - If the owner of the vessel takes the proper steps, by transfer of his interest in ship and freight, or by paying into court its value, or securing the same by stipulation, and placing it under the control of the court for the benefit of the claimants, he may, by plea or suggestion in the State court, set up these proceedings in abatement of the State court suit; and any further proceeding in the latter will thereafter be erroneous and ground of reversal on error to the Supreme Court of the United States.72

When the plea or suggestion in the State court only shows that proceedings for limited liability are pending and undetermined in the District Court, probably a stay of proceedings is all that the defendants could require; but when they set up and produce the final decree of that court, forever debarring the plaintiff from prosecuting any claim for damages, they are entitled either to a verdict and judgment in their favor, or to a dismissal of the proceedings."

5.

73

continuing State court action.] -The action in the State court may be allowed to continue if design, neglect, or privity, or knowledge, is alleged in such manner as to show a case within the exceptions of the statute. But plaintiff proceeds at the risk of

authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy." This quotation, so far as it depended on the original statute of 1793, was settled in favor of the right to restrain in the case of Matter of Providence, etc., Steamship Co., 6 Ben. 131. But how far the introduction of the exception as to bankruptcy, in § 720, has affected this power has never come before the court. Judge Choate held that, notwithstanding this change, the District Court still has power to restrain the proceedings in the State court, because such power is to be implied from the words in § 4285: "After such transfer all claims and proceedings against the owner shall cease." And he further thought that the restraining order should proceed from the court in which was vested the exclusive jurisdiction, denying motion to vacate restraining order.

The Amsterdam, 23 Fed. Rep. 112. Claimants moved to dissolve the injunction on the ground that there was no authority for it. Denied. Rule 54 expressly provides for it. City of Columbus, 22 Fed. Rep. 460.

See, also, The Tolchester, 42 Fed. Rep. 180; The City of Norwalk, 55 id. 98; In re Whitelaw, 71 id. 733.

72 Providence & New York Steamship Co. v. Hill Manufacturing Co., 109 U. S. 578, 600.

73 Id., 601. Here the amended answer to the action in the State court in Massachusetts set up a final decree of the United States District Court for the southern district of New York, by which it was decreed that the plaintiff herein be forever debarred, etc. Notwithstanding this the court allowed the trial to proceed. Judgment reversed for this and other reasons.

74 Checkley v. Prov., etc., S. S. Co., 60 How. Pr. 510. As to those exceptions, see Providence, etc., Co. v. The Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578; Caldwell v. New

wholly failing in the action if he should fail to bring his case within one of the exceptions."

Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Swarthout v. New Jersey Steamboat Co.. 48 N. Y. 209; Curran v. Cheeseman, 1 Cinc. (Ohio) 52; Chisholm v. Northern Trans. Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 363; Grey v. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387; Haegi v. Providence, etc., Steamship Co., 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 145; The Re public, 61, Fed. Rep. 109; The Annie Faxon, 15 id. 312; In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 130 id. 76. As to holding the owners bound by knowledge of officers and servants, see Hill Mfg. Co. v. Providence, etc., Steamship Co.. 113 Mass. 495, rev'd in 109 U. S. 578; Lord v. Goodall, etc., Steamship Co., 4 Sawyer, 292.

As to when knowledge is chargeable to a corporation, see Craig v. Cont. Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638; Parsons v. Emp. Transp. Co., 111 Fed. Rep. 208; Weisshaar v. Kimball Steamship Co., 128 id. 397.

75 Checkley v. Prov., etc., S. S. Co. (above). Denying motion for stay pending proceedings in District Court, without prejudice to a renewal thereof, if the plaintiff should fail to sustain the complaint upon one or more of the exceptions made by the Act of 1851.

As to the effect of a finding by a jury of a State court, see In re Old Domin. Steamship Co., 115 Fed. Rep. 845.

As to what matters a judgment in a State court is res adjudicata, see Gleason v. Duffy, 116 Fed. Rep. 298.