Legal Opinion

Central Ry. Signal Co. v. Jackson

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1917PublishedCited by 3 opinions

In Equity. Suit by the Central Railway Signal Company and another against George B. Jackson. Sur rule to strike bff return of service of subpoena.

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

The defendant invokes no right of his own. At the most he becomes the beneficiary, through receiving the practical benefits, of a rule of policy followed by the courts when deemed applicable. • The rule is that no court will brook unwarranted interference by others with the orderly process of judicial proceedings before it. It recognizes the necessity for the enforcement of a like rule by other courts. It therefore applies the doctrine of comity, at least to the extent that it will not sanction the use of its process to interfere with what another court is seeking to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bridges v. SheldonUnited States Circuit Court · 1880
  2. Kaufman v. GarnerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Kentucky · 1909
  3. Atchison v. MorrisDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1882
  4. Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. WilsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1884
  5. Feister v. HulickDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1916

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Smith v. Government of Canal ZoneCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1918
  2. Cooke v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  3. Sherwin-williams Co. v. American Chemical Paint Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API