234 U.S.

Opinion of the Court.

ruptcy." The latter clause formerly had reference to § 5106, Rev. Stat. (§ 21 of the Bankruptcy Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 517, 526, c. 176); in the place of which we now have § 11 and sub-divisions 7 and 15 of § 2 of the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 544, 546, 549, c. 541). It is quite evident that the injunction sought by the present complainants is not one authorized by the Bankruptcy Act.

The prohibition against injunctions to stay proceedings in state courts originated in the act of March 2, 1793 (c. 22, § 5, 1 Stat. 333, 335), and has been constantly observed by the courts. See Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 257; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158, 172; United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Co., 176 U. S. 317, 320; Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 205 U. S. 322, 338; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210, 226.

It is recognized, however, that § 720 was not intended to limit the power of the Federal courts to enforce their authority in cases that on other grounds are within their proper jurisdiction; and hence, it has been held that, in aid of its jurisdiction properly acquired, and in order to render its judgments and decrees effectual, a Federal court may restrain proceedings in a state court which would have the effect of defeating or impairing such jurisdiction. French, Trustee, v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494, 497; Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93, 112; Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239, 245.

The contention that the present case falls within this exception to the general application of § 720, because the bill is really filed in aid of the judgment of a Federal court, that is to say, the judgment in favor of Hull in the ejectment suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for

the Southern District of Florida, will not bear analysis. The ejectment suit was commenced after the adjudication of bankruptcy, and the bill does not aver that the judgment cut off the equitable rights of the Port Tampa Company, but on the contrary declares that if that company had any title to the property, legal or equitable, at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy, such title still remains in the company. It is not averred that the claim of equitable right on the part of the company is inconsistent with the judgment, or should be subordinated to it. The present trustees, or either of them, were not made parties to the ejectment suit, nor is the company made a party to the present action. And, upon the whole, it seems to us that by no interpretation or construction can the present bill be deemed to have been filed in aid of the judgment in ejectment, or be sustained upon that theory.

It is argued that the bill cannot be deemed to have as its object the staying of a pending suit in the state court, because that action abated upon Burr's resignation as trustee, and no further proceeding can be had until his successors have been made parties. To this point a decision of the Florida Supreme Court in the very action is cited; Hull v. Burr, 62 Florida, 499. We do not interpret this decision as sustaining the contention, and in a subsequent stage of the same litigation (64 Florida, 83), the court distinctly held that the action did not abate on the resignation of Burr, but might be proceeded with by his successors when appointed, the same as if originally instituted by them; and that a supplemental bill was the proper procedure to have such successors formally brought into the case as parties. Indeed, it is only upon the theory that defendants are prosecuting that suit that the complainants show ground for an injunction against them.

To the suggestion that the term "any court," in the bill of complaint, may include other Federal courts, it is

sufficient to say that the bill is devoid of any showing that defendants are asserting claims against complainants' title in any court other than the Florida state court. Hence there is no occasion to invoke the general rule that the court first obtaining jurisdiction of a controversy should be permitted to proceed without interference. Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 624; Central National Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 432, 459; Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 457, 473, et seq.

We deem that the main object of the bill, to which all else is incidental, is in contravention of § 265 of the Judicial Code (formerly § 720 of the Revised Statutes), and that therefore the decree should be

Affirmed.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CROCKETT.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE

OF TENNESSEE.

No. 826. Submitted April 16, 1914.-Decided June 22, 1914.

Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the state court to review a judgment in an action under the Employers' Liability Act in which the construction of the Safety Appliance Acts was involved, denied. By the Employers' Liability Act the defense of assumption of risk remains as at common law, save in those cases mentioned in § 4 where the violation by the carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employés contributed to the accident.

This court has heretofore construed the letter of the Safety Appliance Act in the light of its spirit and purpose as indicated by the title no less than by the enacting clauses and that guiding principle should be adhered to.

Although the original Safety Appliance Act may not have applied to vehicles other than freight cars, the amendment of 1903 so broadened its scope as to make its provisions, including those respecting

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

234 U.S.

height of draw-bars, applicable to locomotives other than those that are excepted in terms.

By the amendment of 1903 to the Safety Appliance Act the standard height of draw-bars was made applicable to all railroad vehicles used upon any railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and to all other vehicles, including locomotives, used in connection with them so far as the respective safety devices and standards are capable of being installed upon the respective vehicles. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. v. United States, 196 Fed. Rep. 882, approved.

THE facts, which involve the construction and application of the provisions of the Safety Appliance Acts and of the Employers' Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. L. E. Jeffries and Mr. L. D. Smith for plaintiff in

error:

The Safety Appliance Act did not require a draw-bar thirty-one and one-half inches high. A switch-engine is not a freight car. The words "all cars" in § 2 are not applicable to height of draw-bars. The effect of the act of 1893, and the effect of the amendment of 1903 were misconceived by the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The defendant in error assumed the risk: such was the common-law rule and that doctrine was not abolished by the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

In support of these contentions, see American R. R. Co. v. Birch, 224 U. S. 544; Baker v. Kansas City &c., 129 Pac. Rep. 1151; Bowers v. Southern Ry. Co., 73 S. E. Rep. 679; Burns v. Delaware Tel. Co., 7 N. J. L. 745; California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362; Central Vt. Ry. Co. v. Bethune, 206 Fed. Rep. 868; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64; Cleveland &c. Ry. v. Bassert, 87 N. E. Rep. 158; Creswill v. Grand Lodge, 225 U. S. 246; Eau Claire Bank v. Jackman, 204 U. S. 522; Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 6; Freeman v. Powell, 114 S. W. Rep. 1033; Gila Valley Ry. Co. v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94; Gulf &c. Ry. v. McGinnis, 228 U. S. 173; Hammond v. Whitt

234 U. S.

Opinion of the Court.

redge, 204 U. S. 538; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. McKendree, 203 U. S. 514; Johnson v. Railroad Co., 196 U. S. 1; Kan. City Sou. Ry. Co. v. Albers Com. Co., 223 U. Š. 573; Kizer v. Texarkana Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 199; Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Lankford, 209 Fed. Rep. 321; McCormick v. Market Bank, 165 U. S. 538; Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59; Mondou v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1; Neil v. Idaho, 125 Pac. Rep. 331; Neilson v. Lagow, 12 How. 98; Nutt v. Knut, 200 U. S. 12; Pennell v. Phila. & R. Ry. Co., 231 U. S. 675; Rector v. City Deposit Bank Co., 200 U. S. 405; St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281; St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. v. McWhirter, 229 U. S. 275; St. L., S. F. & T. R. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156; San Jose Land Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 177; Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. R. Co., 220 U. S. 590; Seaboard Air Line v. Duvall, 225 U. S. 477; Seaboard Air Line v. Moore, 228 U. S. 433; Southern Ry. Co. v. Gadd, 207 Fed. Rep. 277; Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487; Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Archibald, 170 U. S. 665; Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51; Un. Pac. R. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 161 U. S. 451; Un. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Fuller, 202 Fed. Rep. 45; Worthington v. Elmer, 207 Fed. Rep. 306.

Mr. J. A. Fowler, Mr. A. C. Grimm and Mr. H. G. Fowler for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Crockett, the defendant in error, brought this action in the Circuit Court of Knox County, Tennessee, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while in the employ of the Railway Company. The action was based upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65, in connection with the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat.