Kline et al. v. Burke Construction Company
260 U.S. 226 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where concurrent jurisdiction exists between a state and federal court over an action in personam, the federal court may not enjoin the parallel state court proceeding, as both courts are free to proceed until a judgment is reached in one, which can then be pled as res judicata in the other.
Facts:
- Burke Construction Company, a Missouri corporation, entered into a contract with the Board of Improvement of Paving Improvement District No. 20 of Texarkana, Arkansas.
- The contract required Burke Construction Company to perform paving work on certain streets in Texarkana.
- A dispute arose regarding the performance of the contract.
- Burke Construction Company claimed the Board of Improvement breached the contract, while the Board claimed that Burke abandoned the project.
Procedural Posture:
- Burke Construction Company sued the Board of Improvement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for breach of contract, based on diversity of citizenship.
- A trial was held in federal court, which resulted in a jury disagreement (a mistrial).
- Subsequently, the Board of Improvement sued Burke Construction Company in an Arkansas state chancery court on the same contract.
- Burke Construction Company had the state case removed to federal court, but the District Court granted the Board's motion to remand it back to the state court, where it remained pending.
- Burke Construction Company then filed a dependent bill in its original federal action, seeking to enjoin the Board from prosecuting the parallel state court lawsuit.
- The U.S. District Court denied the injunction.
- Burke Construction Company, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed the District Court and ordered it to issue the injunction.
- The Board of Improvement, as petitioners, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court, having first acquired jurisdiction over an in personam action, have the authority to enjoin the parties from prosecuting a subsequent, parallel action in a state court on the same cause of action?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sutherland
No. A federal court does not have the authority to enjoin a parallel in personam state court proceeding. The court distinguished between actions in rem (concerning property) and actions in personam (concerning personal liability). In an in rem action, the court first acquiring jurisdiction over the property (the res) may enjoin proceedings in other courts to prevent conflict over the control of that property. However, a controversy over personal liability is not a 'thing,' and parallel in personam actions in state and federal courts do not defeat or impair each other's jurisdiction. Both courts are free to proceed, and the first to reach a final judgment will have its decision applied under the principle of res judicata to conclude the matter in the other court.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the rule of concurrent jurisdiction for in personam actions, promoting comity between federal and state courts. It clarifies that the mere pendency of a federal diversity suit does not grant the federal court a superior right to adjudicate the controversy or enjoin a state court from hearing the same matter. The case reinforces that the proper mechanism for resolving duplicative litigation is the doctrine of res judicata, not a preventative injunction, thereby preserving the independent authority of both judicial systems. This principle prevents a race to the federal courthouse from automatically blocking a party's access to a competent state court.
