8. Concurrent Jurisdiction-(a) Generally.-Where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, whichever court first acquires jurisdiction of a cause will retain it throughout if able to determine court: When the constitution had given another court original jurisdic*ion in such cases, "with such appeals as are provided by law." Hurd v. Tombes, 7 How. (Miss.) 229, 233. It has been held, however, that the legislature can confer such jurisdiction only on other tribunals provided for by the constitution. The constitution of California confers on the county courts original jurisdiction "of all such special cases and proceedings as are not otherwise provided for;" and it was held, that if the court could confer jurisdiction in such special cases on other tribunals mentioned in the constitution, it could not confer it upon a county judge who is not the court over which he presides. Spencer Creek Water Co. v. Vallejo, 48 Čal. 70. Whenever a new tribunal is created for the trial of offences that were previously indictable in another court, such new tribunal may take jurisdiction of an offence committed prior to its creation. The constitutional jurisdiction of a court may be regulated and enlarged by an act of the legislature. Board of Supervisors v. Arrighi, 54 Miss. 668; Harris v. Vanderveer, 21 N. J. Eq. 424. A provision in a constitution that the county courts "should exercise their present jurisdiction until the board of county commissioners is organized," has been held to be a mere limitation upon the power to change the jurisdiction from county business to civil or criminal causes, and not to prohibit the legislature from enacting additional laws regulating such courts or enlarging their powers in matters of county business. Shaw v. Hill, 67 Ill. 455; Broadwell v. People, 76 Ill. 554. Where the judicial power of a territory is vested in a superior court, and such inferior courts as the legislative council of the territory may prescribe, the council may give to an inferior court created by them concurrent general jurisdiction with the superior court, except so far as said court's jurisdiction may be exclusive. American etc. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; Re Lothrop, 118 U. S. 113. But where the judicial power of a territory was vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts and jus tices of the peace, and general jurisdiction in chancery as well as at law is given the supreme court and the district courts, and the powers of the justices of the peace were limited and defined, the probate courts cannot be vested by the territorial legislature with the powers of courts of general jurisdiction, both civil and criminal. Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 375. Compare Thomas v. Bibb, 44 Ala. 721. In Massachusetts, by an act passed in 1804, jurisdiction to try larcenies in certain cases was vested concurrently in the supreme judicial court and in the municipal court, but each court was given a different power to sentence therefor. In 1812 a new act was passed providing that the municipal court "shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the supreme judicial court, of all crimes and offences not capital; and the said municipal court shall and may exercise such jurisdiction, any law usage or custom notwithstanding,” saving a right to appeal. And it was held that in an indictment for an offence included in the act of 1804, the said municipal court could, under the act of 1812, pass the same sentence as the supreme judicial court could pass under said act of 1804. Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 460. Where an act is not prescribed by the constitution as the particular duty of any officer, the legislature may give any one exclusive jurisdiction therein, although it had been uniformly performed by some certain official. Ross v. Whitman, 6 Cal. 362. 1. Concurrent and Co-ordinate Jurisdiction.-"The leading general principle as to courts of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction is, that whichever court of those having such jurisdiction first acquires possession of a cause will retain it throughout." Wells on Juris diction of Courts, § 156. Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199; Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean (U. S.), 355; Gould v. Hayes, 19 Ala. 438; Averill v. Steamer Hartford, 2 Cal. 308; Beatty v. Ross, 1 Fla. 198; Hardeman v. Battersby, 53 Ga. 36; Mail v. Maxwell, 107 Ill. 554; Taylor v. Fort Wayne, 47 Ind. 274; Barkdull v. Herwig, 30 La. An. 618; Winn v. Albert, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 42, 54; Brown v. Wallace, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) the whole controversy. But this only applies to suits between the same parties seeking the same remedy, and to the questions properly involved in the case. And it does not apply to the courts of the different States.3 (b) Law and Equity Courts.-A court of equity will in certain cases interfere with proceedings at law, and entertain original 479, 496, Miller v. County Commrs. 119 Mass. 485; Powers v. City Council, 116 Mass. 84, 86, Conover v. Mayor, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 513; Cooper v. Dismal Swamp Canal Co., 2 Murph. (N. Car.) 195; Ex parte Bushnell, 8 Ohio St. 599; Cleveland, P. & A. R. v. Erie, i Grant (Pa.) 212, or 27 Pa. St. 380; Clepper v. State, 4 Tex. 242, Thompson v. Hill, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 167. "This rule would seem to be vital to the harmonious movement of courts whose powers may be exerted within the same sphere and over the same subjects and persons. The only course of safety is where one court, having jurisdiction over the subject, has possession of the case for all others, with merely co-ordinate powers to abstain from any interference. Any other rule will unavoidably lead to perpetual collision, and be productive of the most calamitous results." Brooks v. Delaplaine, 1 Md. Ch. Dec. 351, 354. The jurisdiction of the court thus first exercising jurisdiction extends to the execution of the judgment rendered. Hawes v. Orr, 10 Bush (Ky.) 431. Courts have no power to interfere with the judgments and decrees of other courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Anthony v. Dunlap, 8 Cal. 26; Revalk v. Kraemer, 8 Cal. 66. A court should not frame an issue to determine the distribution of a fund, where there is no fund actually in that court, said fund being in some other court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, Walker v. Marine Bank, 98 Pa. St. 574 1. Where the first court, because of its limited jurisdiction or mode of proceeding, is not capable of determining the whole controversy, another court may take jurisdiction and accomplish it. Gould v. Hayes, 19 Ala. 438; Uhlfelder et al. v. Levy et al., 9 Cal. 607. 2. The rule that among courts of concurrent jurisdiction, that one which first obtains jurisdiction of a case has the exclusive right to decide every question arising in the case, is subject 4 to some limitations; and is confined to suits between the same parties or priv. ies, seeking the same relief or remedy, and to such questions or propositions as arise ordinarily and properly in the progress of the suit first brought, and does not extend to all matters which may by possibility become involved in it. Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 334, Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 365. 3. At common law the rule is well established, that the pendency of a prior suit in personam in a foreign court, between the same parties for the same cause of action is no sufficient cause for stay or bar of a suit instituted in a State court. This rule obtains in regard to actions pending in another State of the Union. White v. Whitman, 1 Curtis_(U. S.)_494; Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn. 485; Seevers v. Clement, 28 Md. 426; Loury v. Hall, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 129; Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. St. 326. Compare ex parte Balch, 3 McLean (U. S.) 221. 4. Law and Equity Courts.-Perhaps the most common instance of concurrent jurisdiction is between courts of law and courts of equity. The jurisdiction of courts of equity to restrain proceedings at law, the cause of such a bitter controversy between LORD ELLESMERE and LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COKE, is not now based upon any right which the courts of equity have to interfere with the courts of law, but upon the jurisdiction which that court has over individuals, and the decrees of the court of equity restrain those individuals from proceeding in the law courts, and does not restrain the law courts themselves. See the principal case, Earl of Oxford's case, 2 Lead. Cas. in Eq. (4th Am. ed.) part 2, 1291. See INJUNCTIONS, Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, vol. 10. While injunctions may issue to restrain proceedings in suits in foreign countries-Story's Equity Jurisprudence (13th ed.), vol. 2, §§ 899, 900; and by the courts of one State to restrain proceedings in another State-Bank of B. Falls v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 28 jurisdiction though there may be jurisdiction at law also; and the proceedings may be prosecuted concurrently both at law and in equity.2 (See the articles on EQUITY and INJUNCTIONS.) Vt. 470; yet "there is one exception to this doctrine which has been long recognized in America; and that is that the State courts cannot enjoin proceedings in the courts of the United States, nor the latter in the former courts." Story's Equity Jurisprudence (13th ed.), vol. 2, $ 900. there cited, and City of Opelika v. See cases Daniels, 59 Ala. 211, Chapin v. James, 11 R. I. 86, Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean (U.S.) 355. Where, after commencing suit in New York, the plaintiff commenced another suit for the same cause of action in Rhode Island, and after taking testimony in the suit in New York, broke off and proceeded in the suit in Rhode Island, the court refused to restrain him from prosecuting the suit in Rhode Island, but entered an order staying the suit in New York, unless he agreed to proceed there and stay the suit in Rhode Island. Hammond v. Baker, Sandf. (N. Y.) 704. 3 1. But while a court of equity has thus no superior jurisdiction over a court of law, yet in cases where the remedies at law are ineffectual, there may be a concurrent remedy in equity. As where a corporation was required by its charter to pay over its receipts in excess of a certain sum to the trustee of the school fund of a State, and the trustee was authorized to sue therefor, it was held that a bill in equity would lie in the name of the State against the company for a discovery, account and payment. State v. Wilmington Bridge Co., 2 Del. Ch. 58. The adoption of a code giving to a court of common law the power to so mould its verdicts that it may be able to give to a complainant an adequate remedy, will not deprive a court of equity from entertaining jurisdiction in such a case, as the jurisdiction of the two would simply be concurrent. Hardeman v. Battersby, 53 Ga. 36. courts When a court of equity has jurisdiction of a cause for one purpose it will adjudicate the full merits of the controversy, notwithstanding courts of law exercise jurisdiction in the same class of cases. Hickman v. Painter, 11 W. Va. 386. A court of equity will not exercise jurisdiction in the first instance unless there be some ground peculiar to equity. As in cases of account, the not sufficient, but some special equit mere fact that an account is wanted is able ground must be set up, as that the accounts are intricate or a discovery is needed. Jewett v. Bowman, 29 N. J. Eq. 174. To same effect Mordecai v. Stewart, 37 Ga. 364. the trusts in a deed, is based upon the 2. A proceeding in equity to enforce therefore was held no bar to a proceeding assumption that the deed is valid, and sumption that the deed is null and void, a court of law based on the contrary asin a case where the plaintiffs in the action at law were not parties to the proceeding in chancery. Am. Ex. Bank v. Inloes, 7 Md. 380, Keighlee v. Ward, 8 Md. 254. Actions Against Receivers. Where one court has appointed a receiver for a corporation, it has been held that it is not essential to the jurisdiction of a against such corporation, that leave to court of law, in an action for damages prosecute should first be obtained of Carter v. Rodewald, 108 Ill. 351, Allen the court appointing the receiver. Kinney v. Crocker, 18 Wis. 74, Paige v. Central R. Co., 42 Iowa 683; v. Smith, 99 Mass. 395, Hills v. Parker. 38 Vt. 402; Chautauqe Co. Bank v. III Mass. 5c3, Blumenthal v. Brainerd, Risley, 19 N. Y. 369, 376. To the contrary are Gest v. N. O., St. L. & Chicago R. Co., 30 La. An. 28; Angel v. Smith, 9 Vesey 335; Wiswall Sampson, 14 How. (U. S.) 52. And see Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. (U. S.) 450. See RECEIVERS, Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law. v. A court of chancery will not stay mortgagee to obtain possession of mortproceedings in ejectment brought by a gaged premises on a bill by the mortpetitioner's remedy at law being adegagor, when no discovery is sought, jurisdiction of the subject matter. Henquate and a court of law having obtained ry v. Tupper. 27 Vt. 518. before it a question of the indebtedness But the fact that a court of law has of a garnishee to a debtor will not preclude other creditors from interposing such garnishment. Eaton v. Patterson, in chancery, against a judgment, on 2 Stew. & Port. (Ala.)9. (c) Jurisdiction in Rem.-Jurisdiction in rem may exist in several courts at the same time.1 (d) United States and State Courts.-The United States courts have co-ordinate jurisdiction with State courts. They adopt the law as established by the decisions of the State courts, except where the obligation of a contract would be thereby impaired,3 and except as to general principles of equitable jurisprudence,1 and as to general principles of principles of common and commercial law.5 The holder of a note secured by a mortgage may proceed at law on the note, and in equity on the mortgage at the same time, until he obtains actual satisfaction of his debt. Ober v. Gallagher. 93 U. S. 199. A libel in admiralty in a United States court for nondelivery of freight, and a civil action in State court for freight money, may proceed at same time, without danger of any collision or clashing of jurisdiction. Russell v. Alvarez, 5 Cal. 48. 1. Jurisdiction in Rem.-Where actual seizure of the res is not necessary to give jurisdiction in rem, such jurisdiction may exist in several courts at the same time on the same subject. But the court whose mesne or final process has made the first actual seisure of the thing must have exclusive power over its disposal and the distribution of the fund arising therefrom; and the judgments of all other courts, when properly authenticated, and filed in the court having custody of the fund, must be regarded as complete adjudications of the subject matter of litigation and be entitled to distribution accordingly. Averill v. Steamer Hartford, 2 Čal. 308. 2. United States and State Courts. The courts of the United States sitting in the respective States have co-ordinate jurisdiction. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20. Having such jurisdiction they have held that they are not bound by the decisions of the State courts in all respects. The decisions of the State courts will be adopted in the construction of the statutes of the State, or on questions arising out of the common law of the State, especially when the State decision has become a rule of property. If, after a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in conformity with a State court decision upon such questions, the State court change its views, the United States court will also change. Green v. Neel, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 291; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 How. (U. S.) 497. See Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20; Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555. Compare Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Phonix Ins. Co. ("The Montana"), 129 U, S. 397. 3. But if a contract, when made, is valid by the laws of the State, as then expounded by all the departments of its government and administered in its courts of justice, the United States courts will not allow its validity and obligation to be impaired by any subsequent act of the legislature of the State or decision of its courts, altering the construction of the law. Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. (U. S.) 416; Selpecke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 175; City of Kenosha v. Lamson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 477; Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 678; Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677. 4. In all cases involving general principles of equitable jurisprudence, the United States courts are not bound by the decisions of State courts. Russell v. Southard, 12 How. (U. S.) 139; Neves v. Scott, 13 How. (U. S.) 268. 5. Where private rights are to be determined by the application of common law rules alone, the United States courts refuse to be bound by State decisions. City of Chicago v. Robbins, 2 Black (U. S.) 418. In like manner it has been held that United States courts are not controlled by decisions of State courts on questions of general commercial law. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 1; Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. (U. S.) 517; Oates v. First Nat. Bank, 100 U. S. 239; Brooklyn City etc. R. Co. v. Nat. Bank, 102 Ů. S. 14. Also as to liabilities of common carriers on a contract of carriage. Myrick v. Mich. Cent. R., 107 U. S. 102; Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555. On this question of the liability of (e) States with Boundary Rivers.-When States are separated by boundary rivers the courts of each State have concurrent jurisdiction over the river.1 9. Incidental Jurisdiction.-See also CONTEMPT OF COURT, and COURTS (for rules of court). Terms of Court.-A court must exercise its jurisdiction within its terms as regulated by the constitution or act of assembly.2 common carriers, it has been held in New York that the courts of one State are not bound to follow the decisions of the courts of another State as to contracts to be performed there. Faulkner v. Hart, 82 N. Y. 413. But contrary decisions have been rendered in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 74 Ill. 197; Forepaugh v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co., 24 Weekly Notes of cases (Pa.) 385. State courts and United States courts have concurrent jurisdiction to collect the assets of a bankrupt. Wente v. Young, 12 Hun (N. Y.) 220; Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130. United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction over land in a State ceded by the State to the United States, though the grant be conditioned in this that the State retains "concurrent jurisdiction" so far as to execute its process in the ceded place. United States v. Davis, 5 Mason (U. S.) 356. 1. Boundary Rivers.—The States of Pennslyvania and New Jersey have concurrent jurisdiction over the river Delaware. They united in giving a charter to build a toll bridge across said river. Subsequently the legislature of New Jersey passed an act de claring "that it should not be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever to erect, or cause to be erected, any other bridge or bridges across the said river Delaware at any place or places within three miles" of the above toll bridge. Thereafter both Pennsylvania and Maryland granted a new charter to other parties to erect a new toll bridge over said river within three miles of the former bridge. In a proceeding by the first company to enjoin the second, it was held that the above act of the legislature of New Jersey conferring the exclusive privilege in the first bridge company was illegal and void, as neither State by the exercise of her sole jurisdiction has the right, by the terms of the agreement, to grant the franchise, so neither can alone lawfully contract to refuse to grant it. President, Man agers etc. v. Trenton City Bridge Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 46. When Pennsylvania has authorized one of its railroad companies to bridge the Delaware so as to connect with any New Jersey road, and New Jersey has authorized one of its railroad companies to bridge the Delaware so as to connect with any Pennsylvania road, the States have exercised concurrent jurisdiction under the treaty of 1783 in such manner as to give mutual consent to the erection of a bridge by the New Jersey and Pennsylvania companies jointly, each from its own bank to the center of the stream. Attorney General v. Delaware & Bound Brook R. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 631. When two States have concurrent jurisdiction over a boundary river, one State can, for the purposes of public improvements, divert the water in said river by means of a dam, or at least that no private party has a right to complain thereof. Rundle et al. v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 14 How. (U. S.) 8o. And one State may authorize a company to construct booms in the navigable portion of the river, to facilitate running logs therein, although the direct effect thereof be to materially, but not permanently obstruct the navigation for steamboats. Keator Lumber Co. v. St. Croix Boom Co. (Wis.), 38 Northwest. Rep. 529 (1888). The States of Wisconsin and Minnesota have concurrent jurisdiction over the St. Croix river, and suits for damages for injuries resulting in death received upon the said river may be brought in the courts of either State, though the injuries were received on the side of the center of the stream towards the other State. Opsahl Admx. v. Judd et al., 30 Minn. 126. 2. Terms of Court.-When a time is prescribed by law within which a court shall be held, it is essential to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court that it act within the time prescribed, and should it act at another and different time, such acts are absolutely void. |