Logan v. Lucas

Citations

• 59 Ill. 237

Syllabus

<p>1. State and Federal courts—neither can interfere with the process of the other. The State courts can not enjoin proceedings in the courts of the United States, nor the latter in the former courts.</p> <p>8. The defendant in an execution issued upon a judgment- rendered in the circuit court of the United States, upon bill filed in a State court, sought to enjoin, not directly, the plaintiff in the judgment, or the United States officer charged with the execution, but only a third person, who, it Avas alleged, caused the execution to be issued, and controlled the same, and asked that he might be restrained from any further action in respect to the execution, or in the collection of the judgment, and that he be required to command the officer having the execution, to take no further proceedings under it. This was regarded as an attempted interference with the execution of process from a United States court, and within the rule prohibiting such interference by a State court.</p> <p>3. Chancery—whether a bill will be retained after Us principal purpose has failed. Where a bill was filed for the purposes of an injunction, and also asked an accounting between partners, but the bill shewed there had already been a settlement between the partners and a balance due the complainant agreed upon, it being determined the injunction would not lie, it was held, the bill could not be retained for the mere purpose of compelling the payment of the balance struck on the settlement between the partners, tlie complainant having an adequate remedy at law therefor, and there being no allegation of fraud or error- in the settlement as a ground for equitable cognizance.</p>