Rogers & Baldwin Hardware Co. v. Cleveland Building Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. — Hon. James T. Neville, Judge. (1) This was a proceeding quasi in rem, within the meaning of the rule, that after such proceeding had been commenced in the state court no proceedings could be commenced in the United States court which would oust its jurisdiction and prevent the state court from proceeding to judgment and sale of the premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. — Hon. James T. Neville, Judge. (1) This was a proceeding quasi in rem, within the meaning of the rule, that after such proceeding had been commenced in the state court no proceedings could be commenced in the United States court which would oust its jurisdiction and prevent the state court from proceeding to judgment and sale of the premises. Boswell v. Otis, 9 How. 336; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308; Gordon v. Terry, 15 N. J. Eq. 112; Heidritter v. Oilcloth Co., 112 U. S. 294; Colev. Oil Well Supply Co., 57 Eed. Rep. 534. (2) It is expressly decided by…
1DissentBarclay, J.
(dissenting). — Upon the leading proposition in the case a majority of the court in banc have adopted the unanimous opinion delivered in the first division. But they discard some of the minor rulings announced in that opinion, and conclude to affirm the circuit judgment. This change in the result does not seem to me entirely satisfactory.
1. My view still is that the cause should go back for a rehearing. The reasons for that view were given in the divisional opinion, and others will he added.
The opinion of the first division was as follows (omitting the passage approved in the learned opinion…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ray v. StobbsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Bryant v. RussellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Cole County v. MaddenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Conway v. NolteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- State ex rel. Central Type Foundry v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880