[639] Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792).

[640] United States _v._ Ferriera, 13 How. 40 (1852); Gordon _v._ United States, 117 U.S. 697 (1864); Muskrat _v._ United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).

[641] In addition to the cases cited in note 3[Transcriber's Note: Reference is to footnote 640 above.], _see_ Chicago & S. Air Lines _v._ Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113-114 (1948).

[642] In addition to the cases cited in notes 2, 3, and 4[Transcriber's Note: Reference is to footnotes 639, 640, and 641 above.] _see_ Federal Radio Commission _v._ General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464, 469 (1930); Postum Cereal Co. _v._ California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693 (1927); Keller _v._ Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923). _See also_ the dissenting opinion of Justice Rutledge in Yakus _v._ United States, 321 U.S. 414, 468 (1944).

[643] Tutun _v._ United States, 270 U.S. 568 (1926), where the Court held that the United States is always a possible adverse party to a naturalization pet.i.tion.

[644] Fong Yue Ting _v._ United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), where the Court sustained an act of Congress requiring the registration of Chinese and creating agencies for the expulsion of aliens unlawfully within the country and for the issuance of certificates to those ent.i.tled to remain. The act provided for special proceedings in such cases and prescribed the evidence the courts were to receive and the weight to be attached to it. The procedure was held to contain all the elements of a case--"a complainant, a defendant, and a judge--_actor_, _reus_, _et judex_." pp. 728-729.

[645] La Abra Silver Mining Co. _v._ United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899).

Here the Court sustained an act of Congress which directed the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States against the appellants to determine whether an award made by an international claims commission was obtained by fraud. The Court of Claims was vested with full jurisdiction with appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case, decide it, to issue all proper decrees therein, and to enforce them by injunction. The Court regarded the money received by the United States from Mexico as property of the United States. This together with the interest of Congress in national honor in dealing with Mexico was sufficient to enable it to authorize a suit for the decision of a question "peculiarly judicial in nature." pp. 458-459.

[646] Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917).

[647] Taylor _v._ Carryl, 20 How. 583 (1858).

[648] 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).

[649] 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).

[650] 21 How. 506 (1859).

[651] For a full account of this episode _see_ Warren, Supreme Court in United States History, II, 193-194. _See also_ Baldwin, The American Judiciary, 163.

[652] 6 Pet. 515, 596 (1832). _See also_ Warren, Supreme Court in United States History, II, 213; and Baldwin, _op. cit._, 164. It was Worcester _v._ Georgia which allegedly provoked the probably apocryphal comment attributed to President Jackson, "'Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.'" 2 Warren, Ibid. 219.

[653] Mast, Foos & Co. _v._ Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485 (1900).

[654] Covell _v._ Heyman, 111 U.S. 176 (1884).

[655] Riehle _v._ Margolies, 279 U.S. 218 (1929); Harkin _v._ Brundage, 276 U.S. 36 (1928); Wabash R. Co. _v._ Adelbert College, 208 U.S. 38 (1908); Harkrader _v._ Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898); Central National Bank _v._ Stevens, 169 U.S. 432 (1898); Shields _v._ Coleman, 157 U.S.

168 (1895); Moran _v._ Sturges, 154 U.S. 256 (1894); Krippendorf _v._ Hyde, 110 U.S. 276 (1884); Covell _v._ Heyman, 111 U.S. 176 (1884); Watson _v._ Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872); Buck _v._ Colbath, 3 Wall. 334 (1866); Freeman _v._ Howe, 24 How. 450 (1861); Orton _v._ Smith, 18 How.

263 (1856); Taylor _v._ Carryl, 20 How. 583 (1858); Peck _v._ Jenness, 7 How. 612 (1849). For later cases _see_ Toucey _v._ New York Life Ins.

Co., 314 U.S. 118 (1941). Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis _v._ Thompson, 305 U.S. 456 (1939); Brillhart _v._ Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491 (1942); Mandeville _v._ Canterbury, 318 U.S. 47 (1943); Markham _v._ Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1946); Propper _v._ Clark, 337 U.S. 472 (1949).

[656] McKim _v._ Voorhies, 7 Cr. 279 (1812); Duncan _v._ Darst, 1 How.

301 (1843); United States ex rel. Riggs _v._ Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166 (1868); Moran _v._ Sturges, 154 U.S. 256 (1894); Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. _v._ Lake St. Elev. R. Co., 177 U.S. 51 (1900)

[657] 6 Wall. 166 (1868).

[658] Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis _v._ Thompson, 305 U.S. 456 (1939).

This case rests on the principle of comity that where there are two suits _in rem_ or _quasi in rem_, as they were held to be here, so that the Court has possession of property which is the subject of litigation or must have control of it in order to proceed with the cause and grant the relief sought, the jurisdiction of one court must yield to that of the other. The principle, applicable to both federal and State courts, that the Court first a.s.suming jurisdiction over property may maintain and exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other, was held not to be confined to cases where the property has actually been seized under judicial process, but applies as well to suits brought for marshalling a.s.sets, administering trusts, or liquidating estates and to suits of a similar nature, where to give effect to its jurisdiction the Court must control the property.

[659] 1 Stat. 335 (1793); 28 U.S.C.A. -- 2283. In the judicial code an exception is made to proceedings in bankruptcy.

[660] Diggs _v._ Wolcott, 4 Cr. 179 (1807); Orton _v._ Smith, 18 How.

263 (1856); _see_ especially Peck _v._ Jenness, 7 How. 612 (1849) where the Court held that the prohibition of the act of 1793 extended to injunction suits brought against the parties to a State court proceeding as well as to the State court itself.

[661] Freeman _v._ Howe, 24 How. 450 (1861); Julian _v._ Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93 (1904); Riverdale Cotton Mills _v._ Alabama & Georgia Mfg. Co., 198 U.S. 188 (1905); Looney _v._ Eastern Texas R. Co., 247 U.S. 214 (1918).

[662] Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. _v._ Lake St. Elev. R. Co., 177 U.S. 51 (1900); Riverdale Cotton Mills _v._ Alabama & Georgia Mfg. Co., 198 U.S.

188 (1905); Julian _v._ Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93 (1904); Kline _v._ Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922). For a discussion of this rule _see_ Toucey _v._ New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 134-136 (1941).

[663] Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is the leading case.

[664] Arrowsmith _v._ Gleason, 129 U.S. 86 (1889); Marshall _v._ Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891); Simon _v._ Southern R. Co., 236 U.S. 115 (1915).

[665] French _v._ Hay, 22 Wall. 231 (1875); Dietzsch _v._ Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494 (1881); Madisonville Traction Co. _v._ St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239 (1905).

[666] The earlier cases are Root _v._ Woolworth, 150 U.S. 401 (1893); Prout _v._ Starr, 188 U.S. 537 (1903); Juilian _v._ Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93 (1904).

[667] 314 U.S. 118 (1941).

[668] Ibid. 133-141. Justice Reed, in a dissent in which Chief Justice Stone and Justice Roberts concurred, also reviewed the authorities.

[669] Southern Ry. Co. _v._ Painter, 314 U.S. 155 (1941).

[670] 9 Wheat. 738 (1824).

[671] 209 U.S. 123 (1908). _See also_ Smyth _v._ Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898); Reagan _v._ Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 (1894).

[672] Harkrader _v._ Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898); In re Sawyer, 124 U.S.

200 (1888).

[673] Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 163 (1908).

[674] Ibid. 174. The Young case evoked sharp criticism in Congress and led to the enactment of -- 266 of the Judicial Code, prohibiting the issuance of injunctions to restrain enforcement of State laws by a single federal judge, providing for a three-judge court in such cases, limiting the effect of temporary injunctions, and expediting appeals in such cases to the Supreme Court. Act of June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539; 28 U.S.C.A. -- 1253, 2281, 2284. A supplementary act in 1913 (37 Stat. 1013) amended -- 266 of the Judicial Code providing for the stay of federal proceedings to enjoin State legislation if a suit has been brought in a State court to enforce the legislation until the State court has determined the issues. Section 266 was amended again in 1925 when the provisions concerning interlocutory injunctions were extended to include permanent injunctions. Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 938.

[675] Prentis _v._ Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908); Gilchrist _v._ Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 279 U.S. 159 (1929); Grubb _v._ Public Utilities Commission, 281 U.S. 470 (1930); Beal _v._ Missouri Pacific R. Co., 312 U.S. 45 (1941).

[676] Phillips _v._ United States, 312 U.S. 246, 249 (1941), citing and quoting Ex parte Collins, 277 U.S. 565, 577 (1928).

[677] 312 U.S. 246, 251, citing Moore _v._ Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 U.S. 317 (1926); Smith _v._ Wilson, 273 U.S. 388 (1927); Oklahoma Gas Co. _v._ Packing Co., 292 U.S. 386 (1934); Ex parte Williams, 277 U.S.

267 (1928); Ex parte Public National Bank, 278 U.S. 101 (1928); Rorick _v._ Commissioners, 307 U.S. 208 (1939); Ex parte Bransford, 310 U.S.

354 (1940).

[678] Warren, Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev.

345, 354 (1930).

[679] 21 How. 506 (1859).

[680] Ibid. 514-516, 523-524, 526.

[681] United States _v._ Tarble (Tarble's Case), 13 Wall. 397, 407-408 (1872).

[682] 1 Stat. 81, -- 14.