INSURANCE COS., (seven cases.)
(OiTCuitOOUn, D. K'ansCUl. Maroh 14, 1890.)
Under J;he removal ac1; of March 3, 1887. cause may be removed to the federal colirt on the ground or local prejudice, though the amount in controversy is 1ell6' than $2,000, but over $500. . .
OJ' CAUSES-LoOAL PREJUDICE-AMOUNT IN CoNTROVERSY.
.. SutE-INJUNOTION AGAINST PROCEEDING IN ElTATE COURT.
Though Rev. St. U. S. § 729. forbids the granting of a writ of to stay proCeedings in a court of a state; the circuit court may grant an inJunction against the prosecution of an in the state courts after its the federal courts; but it will not. resort to such writ where no injury is about to result to the . moviilg party, and the question of the right to remove the cause is not finally decided.
At LaW. On app1i08.tion for writ of injunction. . Rev. St. U. S. § 720, provides that:"the writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay prcOceedings in any court of a state, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy." .F. L.Williams, J. S. Walker, and T. B. Dawes, for plaintiff. Ware, Biddle Cory, for defendants. 'FOST£R, J.. These cases; of which there are seven in number, with tbesame plaintiff but different defendants, have all been removed tothis court from the state court on the ground of local prejudice, under the act of March 3, 1887. In none of the cases does the sum in coutroversyamount to $2,000, nor less than $500. Notwithstanding the removal, the plaintiff persists in prosecuting the cases in the state court, and the defendants ask for an injunction'restraining him from doing so. The 'plaintiffinsisted at the original hearing for removal, and still insists, that the cases are not removable 'by reason of the amount in controv61'sybeing less.than$2;000, and that this court. has no jurisdiction" and that the state court still holds the cases for trial. He further main... tains that the writ of injunction cannot be issued by reason of the inhibition of section 720 of the Revised Statutes. If his first position is correct, it follows, of course, that this court has no jurisdiction, and the cases are triable in the state court. It is not worth while to rediscuss question whether a case involvi'ngo-ve'r 8500 and less the than $2,000 can be removed, under the act of 1887. The federal judges are divided in opinion on that q1lestion. Mr. Justice HARLAN has held such cases were not removable. Mr. Justice BREWER and some other a different .opinion on that question. . However, I rathe matter settled it\ 'thls circuit in favor of the right of removal. As to the power of this court to enjoin the plaintiff from proceeding in the state court in caseS itis well settled that such power exists. French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 S.494; Fiakv; Railway Oo.,lO·Blatchf. 518; Sharonv. %,.ry, 36 Fed. Rep. 365;fRqilroadOo.v.Jibrd, 30l.Fed. Rep. 170; Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. v.41F.no.8-29
Rep. 849. In the last-named case, LOVE, after citing theauthorities, makes u$&l;OI::.t'he .followhig languaget lIThe" decisions leave no doubt whatever of the power of this court to grant injunctions in cases which have beenLl'egllllarly .removed .from the i state courts; but the power to grant injunctions, and the duty of the court to grant them, prop()sitions." In the viewtbiscollrt takes of these: froIIl the statecoutt, tpat court can take no further legal proceedings therein. In other words, every in hereafteriS,:null and void. Is ita proper; 'pra¢tice to insqch at least some material is abollt to result to the niOv,}ug :par.J;y? ' .In the cQ,lleS befo).'e '. cit,ed" tp,eparty in'VQkiJ;ig ,the aid of the federal court was about to be injured, or his rights seriously complicated, by the proceedings complained of in the state court. The dividing, the Jurisdictili>,l1 of. the cou:m and !hate ,et)Illrt8'lI often so and lmperiectly t1'acedthat. there 18 danger this, a wise s.hould be law-Il ,of' 'oongress, 'enacted: ·in 'purSuance of the .constitu-, tion, are the supreme 111w: of.the land:, and are binding upon the'state as: well as cwrt8;,!file\ law ofl887 imposes.the duty Upon this court of granting or refusing the <>rdarof removal for. ,local prejudice. Whether it is wise for the plaintiff to test the legality of the order of removaL 'by alSSuming that ,iHsivoid,i and':ptoceeding in, the state court:to Vi the Cases. is quite ,Howev,er, iihe cho.oaestodo,so, lcannot' lEle, that 'lbe, 'defeQdants will suffer. ,any, great injury by ,it.; : Should he. howeverl to enforce the judgment, it is not· uQlikely it would bring the rquestions. within the.ruleestablished by ;theisuprem e court in the <lases:befote cited.J:Therquestioll of jutisdictionj;tol!3Y tbeJeast, is not free ,ofrd014<bt;iand:tbere'is a difference of on: thil.t· q'uestion" and, until, it is. seWed by the conrt, no actiQn' seems to.me, oughtto be, taken"umess the exigencies of.,this! qf,the'rAlier,*.beo1utely demand it·. The temporar.y,injlUlQtions asked for .will Qaveto:bedenied.'·, ' I':
I L.r... :'-llit
.!larch '" 1&90,)
cUDdlirIAoit'long, 1887, pl'll11dfng JfOlhth.removal of oaul8ldrcmastate 10 by therein, being J!,ou-reslde;ntIJ" of ' 1 the .the'state,'aoaU!ltf. dprita1r,lilllt' btl a 'single cbntrOverJl C&nDotbe removc!dtwltere · rea state. 'l' . ,
;iOn MD1liORI tQJitemand' to Sta,le: ' .. , .' ;A.ctiOJ1,':by: Atkansas Valley, ,sroeltingOompaQyagainst.Margare'
" .. ):