Swinnerton v. Oregon Pacific Railroad
Citations
- 123 Cal. 417
- 56 P. 40
- 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1088
Syllabus
<p>Conflicting Jurisdiction of State and Federal Courts—Comity— Prior Possession of Subject of Litigation.—There is no common arbiter between the state and federal courts, and comity between them becomes a necessity and is a law which cannot be disregarded; and when a federal court is first in possession of the subject of the litigation, it must be left to determine when its possession and control of the property has ended, without interference from a state court.</p> <p>Id.—Execution of Decree of Federal Court—Custody of Check by Clerk—Garnishment.—The claim of the United States district court that the possession of a check by its clerk payable to the receiver of a railroad appointed by a state court in Oregon, was in execution of its decree distributing the surplus proceeds of a steam vessel operated by such receiver, and which was taken from his custody and sold by order of said district court in admiralty proceedings, will preclude an effective garnishment of the check by a creditor of the railroad company, in a court of this state.</p> <p>Id.—Agency of Federal Court for Transmission of Fund.—In executing the intention of the United States district court to transfer the surplus funds, and the jurisdiction to determine conflicting claims respecting them to the court which appointed the receiver of the railroad in Oregon, the Oregon receiver and Ms proctor must be regarded as in effect officers or agents of the United States district court, for the transmission of the fund in execution of the decree.</p> <p>Id.—Transfer of Property by Federal Court to Another State—Purpose of Transfer.—It seems that a federal court cannot rightfully transfer property from this state to another state for the mere purpose of giving to the courts of that state jurisdiction to distribute such property, thereby depriving the courts of this state of such jurisdiction; but a United States district court may, without violation of that principle, order the distribution of the surplus proce
Judges: Temple
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.