Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/30

16 FEDERAL REFOBTKB. �tain whether the proceeding has been taken in good faith, and whether thero is respectable evidence, which, if believed, would warrant a jury in flnding a verdict for the plaintiflEs. In thiscase there is Buch evidence, and the plain- tifla are entitled to have the sole issue between the parties decided by a jury. �i Equity— In Aid of Attachment — Fraud — Injunction — Staying Proceed- iNGs m State Courts — After Removal peom State to Federal Court — Sections 640 and 720, Kev. St., Construkd — Rbmbdt at Law — Praotice. On thesame day on which the foregoing action at law was begun, the plain- tifis flled in the same court a petition against the same defendants, praying for an injunction and other equitable relief. The petition reiterated the al legations made in the action at law, and set out additional circumstances of the alleged fraud, and charged that S. was about to sell P. 's entire stock of goods to sat- isfy his levy, and that it was not more than sufflcient to do so ; that P. was insolvent and had no other means of payment. It also set out the bringing of the action at law, and levy of an attachment upon the same stock of goods ; but that the same will be of no avail, uniess S.'s levy be postoned, as in equity it ought, to complainant's attachraeat. The plaintifEs, therefore, pray that the levy of S. may be declared fraudulent and void as against them, and be post- poned to their attachment, and that S. be enjoined from making any sale under his levy ; for a receiver to sell said property, and bring the proceeds into court ; and for general relief. A restraining order was granted by a judge of the Fairfleld common pleas, as prayed for. 8. flled his motion to dissolve the injunction ; and thereafter, on petition of plaintifEs, the cause was removed to this court. On the motion to dissolve the injunction— �JSeld, (1) that, by section 640, Rev. St., (act of March 3, 1875, c. ]37, i 4; 18 St. 471,) an injunction granted by a state court before the cause was removed to this court, is continued in force until otherwise ordered by this court; and the question of dissolving or continuing the injunction is not aflEected by the prohibition contained in section 720, Rev. St., but is to be disposed of by this court, upon its merits, precisely as it ought to have been disposed of by the state tribunals if the cause had not been removed. The pro- hibition of section 720 is conflned to cases where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is originally invoked for the very purpose of staying pro- ceedings in the state courts. �(2) The complainants have no adequate and complete remedy at law, and the case is a proper one for equitable interference by injunction. �(3) That if it be true that, by the fraudulent misrepresentations alleged, the complainants were induced to sell to P. upon credit, then the arrangement between S. and P.,— by which the former procured $25,000 of notes falling due at short intervais, with warrant of attorney attached, authorizing judgments by confession, and the .subsequent entry of judgments, and issue and levy of executions thereon, seizing and selling the stock of goods, a large part of which consisted of merchandise sold by the complainants to P. , — is undoubtedly an injurions fraud upon the complainants, for which they are entitled to redress, or, so far not ascoosummated, to prevent ; and reasonable groundsbeing shown in the aifldavits, the determination of the truth or falsity of these charges must be postponed until the final hearing. �In Equity. �Tenneys, Flowers e Cratty, of Chicago, and Hoadly, Johnson a Colston, of Cincinnati, for plaintififs. �Gunckel de Rowe, of Dayton, Ohio, for defendants. ��� �