MCREYNOLDS and others.
January 20, 1887.)
w: D. ilrkan8a8.
, In' a. suit to enjoin the assignment of a judgment 1U a federal court, the court has jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of the pllrties to such suit.
Such l!;uit is not an, original suit, but is auxiliary to, and dependent, upon, ' ,
nisI suit, may comeiJito court,by bill in equity, and have less of citizenslJ,ip.
(8111labu8, by .the Oourt.)
:Parties to the original Buit, or persons who are not parties to such suit, and areentlt1ed to any relief in connection with or growing out of the orig-
In , D. H. Hammond, Ellis McDaniel, and U.M. G. B. Re8e, for plaiiltiff.' " ' .' ' John and Ben T. Du Val, for defendants. PARKER,J.. This is a suit in equity, brought to prevent defendant McReynolds from assigning a certain judgment recovered, as is alleged bill,'in,this court,March 4,1874, in favor of defendants Whit· taker and Mathews against the county of Carrol, in the state of Arkansas, and tbls"district, for the Bum of $13,988.96. It is alleged in the bill that said judgment was in truth the property. of McReynolds, and that MatheVl'san(i Whittaker were only trustees for McReynolds. It is (urther alleged' that McReynolds, being insolvent, executed to defendant Claypool a general assignment of his property for the benefit of said assignment is made part of the bill, and is void on its face; that plaintiff has recovered a judgment against McReynolds in the circuit court of the state, for Benton county, for the sum of $1,252.25; that said McReynolds has no other property of any kind which can be subjected to the payment of the debt of plaintiff, save and excE'pt the judgment of this court; that, unless McReynolds is prevented, he will assign in this court for the fraudulent of preventing an the application of its proceeds to the payment of the judgment debt due to your orator. It is prayed in the bill that McReynolds may be enjoined from assigning said judgmerit of this court. This suit is.against S. D. McReynolds, S. H. Claypool, Leonard Mathews, Edward Whittaker, ahd Carrol' county. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff, and defenda.nts McReynolds, Claypool,and Carrol county, are citizens of Arkansas, and ofthis district. Mathews and Whittaker are ci.tizens of Missouri.' This fact is conceded. The defendants file a demurrer, and farcause thereof they sllY "tbat, upon the facts stated in said bill, this court has no jurisdiction of the cause, because citizenship and residence of none of the parties, complainant or defendant, are averred in the 'and, for all v.29F.no.14-42
that appears, none of them except Carrol county may be citizens or res' . . idents of any state." The sole question raised by t'his demurrer is whether, in this kind of nease, it is necessary, in order to give jurisdiction, the bill should show that plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states. If so, the demurrer must be sUl'ltained; if not, it must be overruled. Froman examination of the decisions of the supreme court of the United States upon a similar question to the one raised by the demurrer in this case, it is well settled, in my opinion, that the court has jurisdiction, not only in a case where the parties to the ori¢.nal judgment come into court by a bill in equity to restrain or regulate the original judgment, also persons other than. those who were parties to the original suit in which judgment was rendered, may invoke the equity side of the court to do what it has jurisdiction to do for the parties to the original judgment. The court has jurisdiction without regard to the :residence of the parties. This is upon the principle that a suit to enjoin a judgment in the federal court is not an original suit, but that it is auxiliary to, and depElndentup9D, the. original regardless of his citizenship, who is entitled to any relief in connection with, or growing out of, the original suit, maycQme into. CO.urt by bill in equity, and have a remedy, regardless of his citizenship: . This right is based upon the the.co.urt rendel'ing ajudgr,nent has coptrol over such judg})rinciple IDent. Its .Jurisdiction extends to regulating; enf()rc\l1g,applying the to it that proceeds o.f jlldgruents, restraining the same,apg 9f they shall be eI;l,tered as satisfi,ep,}f paid. It iabut ahea,Ithy exercise of '!bis jurisdiction for the court. to' see to it that its Judgments .shall not be lll'ledfor a fraul1ulentp\ltpose. 'These views are by v. J[owe, 24 How. 460; .Minnesota 00. v. St. Paul 00., 2\\all. 609; Bauroad09. v: Cha",!-berlatp,,6 Wall. Jones v. A""drewlj, 10 Wall. 327; $rippendorfv. 110 U. S.. 276; S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep..27; Pacific R.. v. M''t88ov,ri P(1.c. R. R. ,J 11 :U. S. 505; S. O. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 583. "The is pverruled. .
(Oi'I'c'Uil 00'1111'1, B. ]).lowa.Janllary 14, 18S7.)
, . lIEReE.· . . Property is not exempted from liability to'an equal and uniform property . ,tax by the fact that it is used, either partially or exclusively, for interstate commerce. , t .. SAllE-VEHIcLEs OJ" 1'RANsPoRTATloN-DomOILlll. '. Vehicles Of transportation, used constantly and continuously upon a single run" acquire a· aitua, for purposes of taxation, independent and·irrespective of dOll1icile of .the owner.
trSED FOR PURPOSES OF mTERSTATllICo)(-