Company, and complaining of one George M. Swift, states:
First. In the order made on April 17, 1914, by this court
in this action appointing a receiver, the said* receiver was
directed to enter into a contract with this defendant for the
development of the lands described therein, to-wit : the north-
west quarter (NW^4) of section nine (9), township eighteen
(18) north, range seven (7) east in Creek county, Oklahoma,
the said receiver was di-rected to release to this defndant what
is known as the working interest in the oil and gas produced
therefrom free from any claim of any party to this action,
and in the contract thereafter entered into between the receiver
and this defendant, the said receiver covenanted and agreed
that he would release to this defendant free from any claim
of any party to this action all the oil and gas produced from
said premises, over and above the royalty of one-fourth inter-
est directed to be paid to the receiver. This defendant has
faithfully complied with all the obligations it assumed with
the receiver in the making of said contract.
Second. After the appointment of the receiver herein, and
on the 23rd day of November, 1913, Saber Jackson, by order
of this court, was made a party defendant herein and in his
answer on said date filed, he expressly ratified all the orders,
judgments, and proceedings that have heretofore been made
in this cause. The said answer of the said Saber Jackson was
filed herein prior to the time the said George M. Swift claims
1430 SUITS IN EQUITY.
to have acquired any interest in or to any oil or gas produced
from said premises, on in any lease upon said premises or
any other lease of whatsoever character in or to said premises.
Third. Thereafter, on the 27th day of February, 1915, the
said George M. Swift filed his petition in the district court
within and for Creek county, Oklahoma, against this defend-
ant wherein he claimed that on the 13th day of November,
1913, the said Saber Jackson, had executed an oil lease upon
the lands in controversy to one J. Coody Johnson reserving
to the said Saber Jackson a royalty of all the oil produced
upon the said premises bv the said J. Coody Johnson or his
assigns. It is further alleged in said petition that through
several assignments said lease had become the property of this
defendant. In said petition it was shown that the purpose of
said suit was to procure judgment for one-eighth of all the
oil theretofore produced or that might be thereafter produced
upon said premises. A copy of said petition is hereto attached
as a part hereof and marked Exhibit "A" of this application.
Fourth. In said cause this defendant filed its answer in
which it advised said court that this court had already taken
possession of said property through its receiver ; that the said
Saber Jackson had become a party to this action expressly
ratifying the. action of this court in appointing a receiver, and
suggesting to said court that it ought not to entertain juris-
diction of said cause. A true and complete copy of this defen-
dant's answer, with amendment thereto, is attached hereto
as a part hereof and marked Exhibit "B." This defendant
further states that, notwithstanding its said plea, said court
entertained jurisdiction of said cause and thereafter and on
the 30th day of October, 1915, rendered judgment wherein
it decreed that the said George M. Swift was entitled to a
one-eighth of all the oil which this defendant had produced
from said land under and by virtue of its contract with said
receiver. A copy of said judgment and decree is attached
hereto as a part hereof and marked Exhibit "C." Thereafter,
on the 5th day of February, 1916, the said court rendered its
further judgment and decree wherein it held that the said
George M. Swift was 'entitled to one-eighth of all the oil there-
tofore produced or which should thereafter be produced by
the defendant from the said premises under its said contract
with the receiver herein. A copy of said final decree is hereto
attached as a part hereof and marked Exhibit "D." Motion
for a new trial in said cause was duly filed and by the court
overruled on March 4, 1916, and this defendant was by order
of said court, required to give bond in the sum of two hundred
fifty thousand ($250,000.00) dollars to supersede said judg-
ment. A copy of the order of said court is attached hereto
as a part hereof and marked Exhibit "E" of this application.
Fifth. This defendant states that it owns no property of any
character whatsoever, except the interest it has in the lease
made herein with the receiver of this court; that it tried but
was unable to give said supersedeas bond, and unless this
court shall protect the defendant, the said Goerge M. Swift
will, through the process of the said state court not only
harass and annoy the defendant, so as to make it impossible
for it to comply with its contract with the receiver, but will,
in effect, nullify the order of this court appointing said
receiver wherein it released to this defendant the working
interest in said premises free from the claims of all parties
to this suit and will nullify and make impossible the carrying
out and performance of the covenants of the receiver wherein
the said receiver agreed to release to this defendant the work-
ing interest of said oil and gas free from the claims of all
parties of this action. This defendant further states that the
said state court will, through its process, assist the said George
M. Swift in thus nullifying the aforesaid order and decree of
this court and the aforesaid contract of the receiver herein.
Sixth. This defendant further avers that on the 28th clay of
March, 1916, the said George M. Swift procured writs of
garnishment to issue out of said state court, wherein it sum-
moned the Security State Bank of Wewoka, Oklahoma; the
Security National Bank of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and
Howard Weber, of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, as garnishees, and
by reason of said garnishment writs, the said George M.
1432 SUITS IN EQUITY.
Swift has induced the said banks and the said Howard Weber
to withhold from this defendant any and all monies owing it,
an any and all oil produced from said premises which this
defendant is entitled to receive, under the aforesaid order of
this court, a copy of which said garnishment summons is
hereto attached, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "F."
Seventh. This defendant states that on the 29th day of
March, 1916, the said George M. Swift procured from the
judge of the said state court, to-wit: the Honorable Earnest
E. Hughes, a writ of injunction, which by its terms prevents
this defendant paying out any monies that may come into
its hands or under its control, and from checking out any
funds that may be placed in any bank to its credit or for its
benefit, and from paying out any money that it may hereafter
receive from any oil produced upon the aforesaid premises,
a true and complete copy of which said restraining or injunc-
tional order is hereto attached, marked Exhibit "G" and made
a part hereof.
Eighth. Now this defendant states that said writs of gar-
nishment and said restraining order were all procured in con-
tempt of the order of this court; that they were purposely pro-
cured for the purpose of infringing upon the jurisdiction of
this court and for the further purpose of nullifying the afore-
said order of this court and the aforesaid contract of this defen-
dant with the said receiver, and for the purpose of making
it impossible for this defendant to carry out its contract with
the said receiver, and that, unless this court shall restrain the
said Swift from further attempting to execute said judgment
the proceedings of the said Swift in the said state district
court will make it impossible for this defendant to carry out
its contract with the said receiver and will nullify and destroy
the aforesaid order of this court and the aforesaid guaranty
of the receiver.
Ninth. This defendant further represents and shows to this
honorable court that it has been informed and verily believes
and therefore alleges that the said George M. Swift, as plain-
tiff and judgment creditor in said state district court action,
has caused an execution to be issued by the clerk of said court
and levied by the sheriff of said Creek county, Oklahoma,
upon the property of this defendant located in said county,
consisting entirely of its interest in and to said above described
tract of land, acquired under the said lease contract with the
receiver of this court, and all the equipment and improve-
ments placed in and upon said land, in performance of its
obligation under and by virtue of the terms of said lease ; also
that the said sheriff of Creek county has advertised all of said
property for sale on the 3rd day of May, 1916, at the court-
house in the city of Sapulpa, said county and state, and will
on said date, unless restrained and prevented by the order
of this court, sell said property to the highest bidder, thereby
making it utterly impossible for this defendant further to
comply with and carry out the provisions of said contract with
the receiver of this court.
Defendant further alleges that the amount of damages
which will accrue to it by the various proceedings to enforce
said judgment, restored to by the said George M. Swift, in
said state district court, is incapable of exact or approximate
estimation and that this defendant has no other adequate
remedy than the injunction process of this court; also that
the said Swift is insolvent.
Wherefore, this defendant prays that the aforesaid George
M. Swift, his agents, attorneys, and other employes, be im-
mediately restrained from further enforcing or attempting to
enforce said judgment, either directly or indirectly, against
the said three-fourths working interest of this defendant in
and to the oil and gas produced on and from said above de-
scribed premises, until a hearing of this application can be
had and that upon such hearing a further order be passed
enjoining the said George M. Swift, his agents, attorneys,
servants, and employes, from further enforcing or attempting
to enforce said judgment during the continuance of said receiv-
ership, and until the final determination of this action. This
defendant further prays for such other and general relief as
1434 SUITS IN EQUITY.
will fully protect it in the enjoyment of the guarantees con-
tained in its said contract with the receiver of this court.
(Signed) STUART & CRUCE,
KEATON, WELLS & JOHNSTON,
Attorneys for the defendant,
Black Panther Oil & Gas
(1) This case is reported in 244 Fed. 20, 156 C. C. A. 448, and the
opinion contains a comprehensive summary of the cases dealing with
this question. The chief question at issue in such cases is, which
court lawfully obtained jurisdiction first?
If the federal court, as here, then it may enjoin further proceeding
in the state court, or a judgment of the state court.
Judicial Code, Sec. 265, prohibits injunction issuing out of a federal
court to stay proceedings in a state court except in bankruptcy pro-
ceedings where authorized by law.
Under this section a federal court is not precluded from granting
an injunction restraining the enforcement of the judgment of a
state court where necessary to preserve the rights of parties in a suit
properly before it. Southern Ry. Co. v. Simon, 153 Fed. 234.
Decree Enjoining State Court Judgment.
On this 22d day of April, 1916, came on for further hear- 1
ing the application for an injunction filed herein by defendant
Black Panther Oil and Gas Company seeking to restrain
George M. Swift, his agents, attorneys and employees, and
the applicant, Black Panther Oil and Gas Company and the
respondent, said George M. Swift, being present by counsel,
the court, after hearing the testimony, and duly considering
the same, finds that the law and the facts are in favor of the
petitioner and the injunction prayed for herein should be
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court
that the respondent, George M. Swift, his attorneys, em-
ployees, servants and agents be enjoined from further attempt-
ing, either by execution or by writs of garnishment or other
process to enforce a certain judgment heretofore recovered in
the district court of Creek county, Oklahoma, wherein the said
George M. Swift is plaintiff and the said Black Panther Oil
and Gas Company is defendant, insofar as said writs of gar-
nishment or executions seek to subject to the payment of said
judgment in the said Creek county district court the three-
fourths working interest, or the proceeds of the same, here-
tofore derived or that hereafter may be derived, by the said
Black Panther Oil and Gas Company in the operation for oil
and gas on the Northwest Quarter (NW%) of section nine
(9), township eighteen (18) north, range seven (7) east, in
Creek county, Oklahoma; and said George M. Swift, his
agents, servants and employees are further enjoined from
attempting to enforce, or from maintaining, writs of garnish-
ment heretofore sued out in said cause pending in said district
court of Creek county, Oklahoma, against the Security State
Bank of Wewoka, Oklahoma; the Security National Bank of
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Howard Weber, of Bartles-
ville, Oklahoma; and the said George M. Swift, his agents,
servants and employees are further enjoined from further
maintaining any writ of injunction heretofore issued in said
cause pending in said district court of Creek county, Okla-
homa, whch attempts to restrain the said Black Panther Oil
and Gas Company from checking out, or using any funds
placed to its credit in any bank or banks in the State of
Oklahoma ; and the said George M. Swift, his agents, em-
ployees and servants are further restrained <and enjoined
from, in any manner, seeking to subject said three-fourths
working interest in the oil and gas produced from said prem-
ises, or the proceeds or moneys arising from the sale of said
oil and gas, either by execution, attachment, garnishment,
injunction or other- process, to the payment of said judgment
procured in the said District Court of Creek county, Okla-
homa, and said George M. Swift is commanded to dismiss
said writs of garnishment and said restraining order, and to
recall any execution issued out of the said District Court of
Creek county, Oklahoma.
1436 SUITS IN EQUITY.
This decree and injunction to be and remain in full force
and effect until the final discharge of the receivership herein.
And thereupon, in open court, the respondent, George M.
Swift, by his attorneys, orally moved the court to require
the Black Panther Oil & Gas Company to execute a bond
conditioned to pay all damages by reason of the injunction
herein as a condition to granting this injunction, which mo-
tion and request is overruled and refused.
It is further ordered, that the said Black Panther Oil &
Gas Company recover of and from the said defendant, George
M. Swift, all its costs in this behalf expended, and the respon-
dent, George M. Swift, excepts to the order and decree herein.
RALPH E. CAMPBELL,
Taken from U. S. v. Wildcat, 244 U. S. 111.
Order Enjoining Prosecution of a Pending Suit at Law in the
Same Federal Court and forbidding the Bringing of Suits
in a State Court, and to Strike Out.(l)
This cause came on to be heard at the November term of
this court and was argued by counsel and thereupon, upon
consideration thereof, it was
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant herein,
The Shubert Theatrical Company of New Jersey, be and it
is hereby enjoined from taking any further steps in a cer-
tain action at law pending in this court in which the said
Shubert Theatrical Company of New Jersey is plaintiff and
the plaintiff herein, The Sherman National Bank, is defend-
ant, until further order of this court; and it is further
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said defend-
ant herein, The Shubert Theatrical Company of New Jer-
sey, is enjoined from commencing any other action against
the plaintiff herein, The Sherman National Bank, in any
court upon the cause of action stated in the said action here-
inbefore mentioned. And it is further
Ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the answer herein
of The Shubert Theatrical Company of New Jersey be
amended as follows : First, that the defence therein denomi-
nated "First Defence" be and the same hereby is stricken out
and the defendant directed to file a further and better state-
ment of the nature of the defence therein contained and fur-
ther and better particulars of the matters therein stated, within
twenty days after the service upon them of a copy of this
order. And it is further
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defences therein
denominated "Second Defence" and "Third Defence" be and
the same hereby are stricken out without leave to' re-plead.
(1) Judicial Code, Sec. 265 does not prevent a federal court from
protecting its own jurisdiction, and it may therefore enjoin prosecu-
tion in a state court which would render its own decree nugatory.
Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93, 48 L. Ed. 629; St. Louis, etc.,
Ry. Co. v. Bellamy, 211 Fed. 172; Jackson v. Parkersburg, etc., Ry. Co.,
233 Fed. 784.
Order for Preliminary Injunction in a Patent Suit.(l)
This cause having come on to be heard on motion of
plaintiff for a preliminary injunction, and on reading and
filing notices of motion for an injunction herein and proof of
service thereof, and the affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff
annexed thereto, and on reading and filing affidavits on behalf
of the defendant, and counsel for defendant as well as for
the plaintiff have been heard, and the same having been duly
considered by the court, and it appearing that letters patent
of the United States No. . were issued in due form of
law on the day of , for an improvement in hobby-
horses, to A. B., and that the said defendant. C. D., has
infringed on the rights secured by the aforesaid letters pat-
ent by making and selling to others hobby-horses embody-
1438 SUITS IN EQUITY.
ing the invention set forth in said patent contrary *to form
of the statute in such case made and provided;
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed
that a preliminary injunction be issued pursuant to the prayer
herein, strictly commanding and enjoining the defendant,
C. D., his clerks, agents, servants, workmen, and attorneys,
under the pains and penalties which may fall upon them, and
each of them, in case of disobedience, that they forthwith, and
until the* further order, judgment, and decree of this court,
desist from making, using, and selling any hobby-horses as
described and claimed in the said letters patent.
(1) As to injunction generally. See Foster's Fed. Prac., 5th ed.,
Sees. 262 to 300; Beach's Modern Eq. Prac., Sees. 753 et seq. When pre-
liminary injunctions are grantable in patent cases. See Robinson on
patents, Sees. 1169 et seq., and cases cited in notes.
Preliminary Injunction to Restrain the Infringement of a
The President of the United States to C. D., and his clerks,
agents, attorneys, servants, and workmen, Greeting:
Whereas, it has been represented to us in the circuit court
of the United States for the - - district of - , that letters
patent No. - - were issued in due form of law on the -
day of - , for an improvement in hobby-horses to A. B.,
and that you, the said C. D., have infringed the rights se-
cured by the aforesaid letters patent by making and selling
to others hobby-horses embodying the invention set forth
and claimed in the said letters patent, contrary to the form
of the statute in such cases made and provided ;
Now, therefore, you, the said C. D., your clerks, agents,
attorneys, servants, and workmen are strictly commanded and
enjoined under the pains and penalties which may fall upon
you and each of you, in case of disobedience, that you forth-
with, and until the further order, judgment, and decree of
this court, desist from making and selling any hobby-horses
embodying the invention of said letters patent, substantially
as described and claimed in the said letters patent.
Order Refusing Injunction in a Patent Suit upon Defendant
And now, this day of , 1893, the above cause
having come on to be heard on the - - day of , on
motion of plaintiff for a preliminary injunction in accordance
with the prayer of the bill in the above entitled cause, and
upon affidavits and exhibits filed by the plaintiff and the
defendant, and having been argued by counsel for the respec-
tive parties, and the court having fully considered the same,
the motion is overruled at the cost of the plaintiff, but it is
ordered that the defendant give bond in the sum of
dollars to the plaintiff for the payment of any profits or
damages that may be decreed against it in this cause for the
infringement of the patent sued on (between the date of this
order and the final decree) : and it is further ordered that if
the defendant fails to execute and file with the clerk of this
court such bond within twenty days from the date of this
entry, plaintiff may renew said motion.
It is further ordered that the defendant keep an account
of all sales of chimneys manufactured and sold, or sold by
him like the exhibits marked - , to be produced when
called for by the court.
Bond in Lieu of Preliminary Injunction in a Patent Suit.
The United States of America,
for the - - District of - . ss.
Know all men by these presents, that C. D., as principal,
and E. R, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto A. B.
1440 SUITS IN EQUITY.
in the sum of - - dollars, to the payment of which they bind
themselves and each of them, their heirs, executors, and ad-
ministrators, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals,
and dated this - - day of - , 1894.
The condition of the above bond is such that whereas in
accordance with an order of the district court of the United
States within and for the - district of - , in the case
wherein A. B. is plaintiff and C. D. is defendant, the said
C. D. executed a bond in the sum of - - dollars, to pay the
plaintiff A. B. such sum as may, upon final hearing, be decreed
in his favor by reason of infringement of the patent sued on
committed between the date of the order of said court and
the final decree herein,, in the said cause.
Now, if the said C. D. shall abide the decisions of the said
court, and pays all moneys and costs which shall be attached
against him in this cause, then these presents shall be void;
otherwise to remain in full force.
C. D. [Seal.]
E. F. [Seal.]
[Add acknowledgment and justification of sureties.]
Writ of Injunction (General Form).(l)
The United States of America,
District of , ss.
The President of the United States of America to C. D.,
Whereas, A. B., citizen of the state of - , has filed on
the chancery side of the district court of the United States
for the district of , a bill against C. D., and has
obtained an allowance for an injunction, as prayed for in said
bill. Now, therefore, we having regard to the matters in
said bill contained, do hereby command and strictly enjoin
you, the said C. D., [set forth from doing what he is re-
strained, also the names of all persons so restrained], which
commands and injunctions you are respectively required to
observe and obey, until our said district court shall make
further order in the premises.
Hereof fail not, under penalty of the law thence ensuing.
(1) Any injunction to be effective should be served personally upon
the persons to be enjoined, but this is not necessary when the party to
be enjoined has actual notice that the injunction has been granted.
Ex parte Lennon, 166 U. S. 548; Ulman v. Ritter, 72 Fed. 1000; affirmed,
78 Fed. 222, 24 C. C. A. 71; In re Gary, 10 Fed. 622; Toledo, etc., R.
Co. v. Penn. Co., 54 Fed. 746, 19 L. R. A. 395; Statelet v. Calif. Natl.
Bank, 77 Fed. 43; U. S. v. Sweeney, 95 Fed. 434.
Marshal's Return of Writ of Injunction.
Received this writ at , on the day of , and
on the same day I served the within named The C. D. Manu-
facturing Company by leaving a true copy of this writ, with