Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College, 208 U.S. 609 (1908)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 208 U.S. 598, click here.

Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College

No. 40

Petition for rehearing and motion to modify judgment
Submitted January 31, 1908
Decided March 9, 1908
208 U.S. 609

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF OHIO

Syllabus

Petition for rehearing and motion to modify judgment in this case, ante, p. 38, denied and further held in this case that:

Where property is in possession and under the control of the federal court, the declaration of a lien upon that property is a step toward the invasion of the court’s possession thereof, and is equally beyond the jurisdiction of the state court as an order for the sale of the property to satisfy the lien would be.

In a proceeding in the state court, the ascertainment of the amount due, whether judgment can be rendered, and the issuing of execution against a corporation, whose property is under the control of the federal court are questions exclusively for the state court, and may be regarded as independent of the proceedings for the enforcement of the lien.

Where claims are presented for adjudication to the circuit court against property in its possession and there are conflicting decisions of the state and federal courts as to the rights of the parties, the circuit court must first determine which decision it will follow. This Court cannot pass upon that question until it is properly before it.

After the decision in this case, reported 208 U.S. 38, the defendants in error petitioned for a rehearing and moved, if that were denied, that the judgment be modified. The substance of the motion was stated by counsel to be that the judgment should be modified

by specifically directing that the Supreme Court of Ohio affirm so much of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lucas County, Ohio, as finds and adjudicates the rights of these defendants in error, and each of them, against the property and parties in said cause, as set forth in the judgment entry, respecting the equities of the cause and right of recovery, the ownership and the lien of the equipment bonds, and the sums due thereon to the parties, respectively, with interest and costs, and by further specifically directing that said Ohio supreme court reverse the judgment of said circuit court so far as it directs a seizure and sale of the property held by the plaintiff in error in Ohio and affected by such lien, and limit the rights of the defendants in error to the recovery on such modified judgment in the federal circuit court found by this court to have jurisdiction of the property.