could be brought to issue, and tried in the regular course of proceedings in the court, it is their fault, and not the fault of the law or of the court. This case went over from month to month, for many months, while the preliminary proceedings-demurrers and amended proceedings-were pending and dragging slowly along, and I am not certain that the case ought not to be remanded on that ground. The case is remanded, with costs.
April 9, 1885.)
(Oircuit (}PUrl, D. Jlassachusetts.
EQUITY PRAOTICE-BILL FOR DISOOVERY AND GENERAL RELIEF-ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW-HEMOVED CASE.
Complainant filed a bill in the state court, alleging that defendant had been granted a license to make and sell bird-cages, patented by him, and praying · that defendant be compelled to disclose the amount of license fees due, and the number of cages made and sold since a date named, and that complainant be granted such other and further relief as his case might require. The case was removed to the circuit court, where defendant demurred to the bill. lIeld, (1) thai, so far as the bill was one for general relief, the court had no jurisdiction, as there existed an adequate and complete remedy at law; and (2) that, so far as it was a bill of discovery, it was open to the objection that it contained no allegation that a suit at law had been brought, or was about to be brought, in which the discovery was material.
2. REMOVAL OF CAUSE-PRACTICE ON REMOVAL-CASE AT LAW OR IN EQuITY-
Where the suit in the state court unites legal and equitable grounds of relief or of defense, as authorized by the state statute, it may, in the federal court, be recast into two cases, one at law and one in equity, and in such a case a repleader is necessary.
On Demurrer to Bill.
COLT, J. This bill in equity was originally brought in the state court and removed to this court. The present hearing was had upon a demurrer to the bill. . The bill alleges, in substance, that the complainant, being the owner of an undivided half interest in a certain patent for hanging bird-cages, granted an exclusive license, during the life of the patent, to tbe defendants to manufacture and sell the same; that, in consideration thereof, the defenda.nts agreed to pay the complainant one cent for each bird-cage spring made and sold by them under said license; that certain sums of money, as license fees, were paid to the complainant on the first day of each and every month, from October, 1876, down to January 1,1883, but that the complainant has no means of knowing whether or not the defendants have rendered true accounts of the number of springs sold; that the complainant has no means of know-
J. MeG. Perkins, for plaintiff. J. L. S. RobM"ts, for defendants.
PEBlUHS 17. lDIHDBYJ:.
ing the number of springs sold since January 1, 1883, but has reason to believe that a much larger number has been sold since that data than before, and that the full sum of $2,000 is due complainant. The bill prays a disclosure of all license fees due complainant since January 1, 1883, and of all bird-cage springs made and sold by defend. ants from October 4, 1878, to January 1, 1883, and for such other and further relief as the case may require. The main object of the bill is for discovery; but, having added a prayer for general relief, it becomes a bill for relief as well. Story, Eq. PI. § 813. So far as the bill is one for relief, it is clear that this court has no jurisdiction to grant it. The action is brought to enforce a contract, and there exists a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. So far as the bill seeks a discovery, it is open to the objection that there is no allegation that a suit at law has been brought, or is about to be brought. In order to support a bill of discovery it must appear that the discovery is asked for the purpose of some suit brought, or intended to be brought, otherwise it will not be entertained, as courts of equity grant discovery to aid some legal proceed. ing. Story, Eq. PI. § 321. If a bill in equity seeks relief which the court has no power to grant, and also seeks a discovery, the defend. ant may demur to the whole bill, if it does not aver that a suit at law is pending, or is about to be brought, in which a discovery may be material. Mitchell v. Green, 10 Metc. 101. But the complainant contends that this case having been removed from the state court, and that court having authority to grant relief in the form here asked for, this court, under the statutes relating to the removal of causes, can proceed and give the same relief. It is sufficient here to observe that in the United States courts the distinction between legal and equitable causes of action is still maintained, and that this applies to causes removed from the state courts, as well as to causes originally brought here. Where the case made by the pleadings in the state court is, in its nature, a law action, it must, when removed to the federal court, proceed as such. Where the suit in the state court is, in its nature, a suit in equity, it must proceed as an equity cause on its removal into the federal court. Where the suit in the state court unites legal and equitable grounds of relief or of defense, as authorized by the statutes of the state, it may, in the federal court, be recast into two cases, one at law and one in equity, and, in such a case, a repleader is necessary. Dill. Rem. Causes, §§ 43,44, 45. The demurrer is sustained, but without prejudice to the complain. ant to amend or replead in this court.
(Oir()'Uit Court, D. RhOde I8land.
April 16, 1885.)
INcTDNCTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURT-REV. ST. § 720.
While an action of replevin, instituted by H., was pending in the state court, he filed a bill in equity in the United tltates court to reform the chattel mortgage under which he claimed the property. Judgment was rendered him in the state court, and suit brought on the replevin bond, whereupon he filed a supplemental bill in the United States court, praying an injunction. On motion for a preliminary injunction to stay proceedings in the suit on the bond until fihal decree on the bill, held, the injunct.ion could not be granted.
On Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Wilson d; Jenckes, for complainant. Wm. H. Baker, for respondent. CARPENTER, J. The complainant commenced an action of replevin in the state court of Rhode Island, wherein he based his title to the property replevied on a certain chattel mortgage. The respondent denied that the mortgage had the effect to convey the property in dispute, and the decision of the suit depended on the interpretation which should be given to the terms of the mortgage. While that suit was pending, the complainant filed his bill in this court, in which he prays a reformation of tbe terms of the mortgage. The suit in the state court then proceeded to final judgment for the defendant, and he thereupon commenced suit on the replevin bond in the state court. The complainant now files his supplementary bill in this court, in which he alleges the commencement and prosecution of the suit on the replevin bond, and prays an injunction; and he now moves for a preliminary injunction to restrain tberespondent from prose· cuting the suit on the bond until final decree on the bill for reforming the mortgage. The statute, in terms, prohibits the granting of an injunction to stay .proceedings in a state court, except when authorized in bankruptcy proceedings. Rev. St. § 720. This statute has been held, however, to apply only to cases where the proceedings are first commenced in the state court. Fisk v. Union Pac. B. Co. 10 Blatchf. 518; Flrench v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494. The complainant points out tbat tbe suit on the bond has been commenced since his original bill was filed in this court; and he claims that, upon the rendering of final judgment on the replevin writ, the state court ceased to have jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and that the proceed. in that court was at an end. I cannot agree with this view of the case. The action on the bond is for the purpose of enforcing, or perhaps more properly of securing, the fruits of the judgment in the replevin suit, and is the appropriate process for tbat purpose. It takes the place of the levy of a writ of execution in an action on the case; and it must for this purpose be taken to be part of the original proceeding in the state court. The motion is denied.