Detroit United Railway v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Detroit United Ry. v. Judge, 170 N.W. 641 (Mich. 1919)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: February 7, 1919
Docket: No. Calendar No. 28,548
Citations: 170 N.W. 641204 Mich. 5431919 Mich. LEXIS 726

Cited by 7

Headnotes

Courts — Federal Courts — State Courts — Jurisdiction. Where a suit attacking the validity of an ordinance of the city of Detroit fixing the maximum rate of fares on certain street railway lines in said city was pending in the Federal court, it had exclusive jurisdiction, and the State court was without jurisdiction to issue an injunction also involving the validity of said ordinance.

Summary

Mandamus by the Detroit United Railway to compel Harry J. Dingeman, circuit judge of Wayne county, to dissolve an injunction, and for a writ of prohibition to prevent further consideration of the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The common council of the city of Detroit enacted an ordinance on August 9, 1918, fixing the maximum rate of fares which plaintiff could charge on certain lines in the city of Detroit. This ordinance took effect on August 13th. Early on that day the city filed its bill of complaint in the circuit court of Wayne county and secured an injunction restraining the plaintiff from collecting any fares in excess of those specified in the ordinance. On August 12th, after the ordinance had been passed, but before the city filed its bill in the State court, plaintiff filed its bill in the district court of the United States, attacking the validity of the ordinance. Later plaintiff *544 filed its answer to the bill filed on behalf of the city and moved the court to dissolve the injunction. This motion being denied by defendant, the plaintiff has applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to dissolve the injunction, and also for a writ of prohibition to prevent further consideration of the case in the State court.

In both of these suits the same issue is presented for determination, namely, the validity of the ordinance. It appears without dispute that plaintiff’s suit was begun in the Federal court on August 12th, and that the city did not file its bill in the State court until August 13th. Applying the well established rule of practice that where a court has taken jurisdiction of a matter it will retain it to decide the issues, to the exclusion of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, it follows that the State court was without jurisdiction in the premises. Maclean v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 52 Mich. 259 ; E. T. Barnum Wire & Iron Works v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 59 Mich. 272 ; Bates v. Alpena Circuit Judge, 82 Mich. 91 ( 21 Am. St. Rep. 554 ); Allen v. Allen, 188 Mich. 532 ; Pinel v. Campsell, 190 Mich. 347 ; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148 (19 Sup. Ct. 119).

The writs prayed for will issue.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Valeo Switches & Detection Systems, Inc. v. EMCom, Inc.725 N.W.2d 364 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)
Darin v. Haven437 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
Owen v. Owen193 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
Valeo Switches and Detection Systems, Inc. v. Emcom, Inc.725 N.W.2d 364 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)
Detroit Trust Co. v. Manilow261 N.W. 303 (Mich. 1935)
Consumers Power Co. v. Michigan Public Utilities Commission258 N.W. 250 (Mich. 1935)

Most recent

Valeo Switches and Detection Systems, Inc. v. Emcom, Inc.725 N.W.2d 364 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)
Valeo Switches & Detection Systems, Inc. v. EMCom, Inc.725 N.W.2d 364 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)
Darin v. Haven437 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
Owen v. Owen193 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
Second National Bank & Trust Co. v. Reid8 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. 1943)
Detroit Trust Co. v. Manilow261 N.W. 303 (Mich. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898)	141
	Maclean v. Speed, 52 Mich. 257 (1883)	55
	E. T. Barnum Wire & Iron Works v. Speed, 59 Mich. 272 (1886)	20
	Pinel v. Campsell, 157 N.W. 271 (Mich. 1916)	11
	Allen v. Allen, 155 N.W. 488 (Mich. 1915)	7
	Bates v. Kelley, 82 Mich. 91 (1890)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list