Swinnerton v. Oregon Pacific Railroad
Before: Temple
Synopsis
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.
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.
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.
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 proceeds of a vessel taken under a libel in admiralty from the custody of a receiver of a state court in Oregon, to be made to such receiver as the only person having a vested interest therein.
Id.—Proceedings Supplementary to Execution—Orders Limiting Conduct of Receiver—Review up.on Appeal.—Upon proceedings supplementary to execution in a superior court of this state, by which it was sought to reach a check in the possession of the clerk of the United States district court, orders limiting the conduct of the receiver appointed by the court to enforce a garnishment of the check made under execution, so as to confine his action to the taking of such proceedings, in the United States district court, as he might be advised, and not elsewhere, will be affirmed both upon the ground that reversal would be useless, it appearing that the fund in controversy had been actually transferred to Oregon by order of the district court prior to the decision upon appeal, and also upon the- ground that comity required that there should be no interference with the jurisdiction of the district court over the disposition of the fund in its possession, made by its decree.
TEMPLE, J. On the fourth day of June, 1894, the appellant recovered a judgment in the superior court of San Francisco against the respondent, the Oregon Pacific Railroad Company, for $15,363.78 and costs.
Execution was issued thereon, proceedings supplementary to the execution instituted, and Southard Hoffman, who had been previously garnisheed under the execution, was cited to appear and be examined before Judge Seawell concerning any property, moneys, or credits in his hands, due, owing, or belonging to the Oregon Pacific Railroad Company.
Upon his examination, it appeared that the Oregon Pacific Railroad Company had been the owner of a steamship known as the “Willamette Valley”; that in the business of the railroad company this steamship plied between the port of Yaquina, Oregon, and the port of San Francisco; that upon one of her voyages to the port of San Francisco, and while in that port, she was seized by the United States marshal under admiralty process issued out of the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, upon a libel in admiralty filed therein against the steamship by E. D. Chandler. Such proceedings were had in this libel suit that the steamship was; by order of the court, duly and regularly sold, and the proceeds paid into the registry of the United States district court where the libel was filed. At the times of the libel proceedings, the sale of the steamship, and the further proceedings hereinafter mentioned, Southard Hoffman, the garnishee, was clerk of the United States district court, and he deposited the proceeds of that sale in the subtreasury at San Francisco. The ultimate issue of the Chandler libel suit was a decree in favor of Chandler and other libelants and intervenors- against the steamship “Willamette Valley” for her condemnation, and payment to the libelants and intervenors of certain amounts found by the court to be due to each of them.
After all the moneys so found due to the libelants for whom the ship and her proceeds were held in custody by the United States district court were paid under its decree, there remained in the registry of the court, undisposed of, $23,950.85. Prior to the seizure of the steamship “Willamette Valley” in the libel suit, a receiver over the property of the Oregon Pacific Railroad [420]Company was appointed by the circuit court of Benton county, in the state of Oregon, and such receiver took possession of all the property of the corporation found in Oregon, including the steamship “Willamette Valley.” In the latter part of the year 1895 a number of persons, among them the receiver appointed by the circuit court of Benton county, in the state of Oregon, claiming an interest in the remnants of the proceeds.of the sale of the steamship, then still lying in the registry of the court, filed petitions in the United States district court, as provided by the rules and practice of the federal courts, praying for a distribution to them of this surplus or remnant. After hearing had upon these petitions the judge of the court made and gave a decree in the matter on the ninth day of June, 1896, dismissing all of the petitions except that of the Oregon receiver, and directed the clerk of his court to pay the moneys then in the registry of the court to that receiver, or to his proctor. In compliance with this decree, Southard Hoffman, as clerk of the United States district court, on the twenty-eighth day of September, 1896, prepared two checks, one for $19,918.29 in favor of Charles Clark, receiver of the Oregon Pacific Railroad Company, and one for $3,606.16 in favor of Charles Page, who was the proctor of the Oregon Pacific Railroad Company and of Charles Clark,the receiver.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)