Palmer v. Texas

Citations

• 212 U.S. 118
• 29 S. Ct. 230
• 53 L. Ed. 435
• 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1801

Syllabus

<p>As the Federal and the state court exercise jurisdiction within the same , territory, derived from and controlled by separate authority, each must respect the jurisdiction acquired over property by the other.</p> <p>When either a Federal, or a state, court of competent jurisdiction takes • possession of, or acquires jurisdiction over, property, that property is as effectually withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the other court as though removed to. the territory of another sovereignty. Wabash Railroad v. Adelbert College, 208 U. S. '38, 54.</p> <p>Jurisdiction over property, properly acquired by the state.court on the qualification of the receiver, is not lost by the giving of a supersedeas pending appeal which, as in- this case, merely suspends the. order of appointment.</p> <p>When a state court has -acquired jurisdiction over property before any application is made to the Federal court it has the right while lawfully exercising that jurisdiction to determine how far it will permit any other court to interfere.therewith. • People’s Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256.</p> <p>Jurisdiction over property by a state court so as to withdraw it from the jurisdiction of Féderal courts in the same territory, does not necessarily depend on possession, but is acquired as soon as the receiver has been- appointed and has qualified. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Lake St. Electric Railway Co., 177 U. S. 59, followed; Shields v. Cole- , man, 157 U. S. 168, distinguished.</p> <p>•The courts of a State construe its statutes and their judgment is conclusive in the Federal courts.</p> <p>, Where the state courts have sustained a receivership of a foreign corpo- - ration on a statute in force before the corporation entered the State, and such statute provides for the appointment of a receiver in case of dissolution, forfeiture, insolvency or imminent danger thereof, the fact that'the receivership was also sustained under provisions of an anti-trust law passed after the corporation entere