Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/124

 110 raOBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �MuBBAT and another v. Oyerstoltz and otliers. �iOiruuit Court, E. D. Missouri, September 14, 1880.) �1. JoRisDiCTioN OF Circuit Court— StrPHRsuDEAa—lNjuHCTioN to Restrain Ex- �ecution OF JUDSMENT. �Neither a United States circuit Court, nor a judge thereof, bas authority to interfere by injunction to prevent the execution of a judgment of a state court, upon the ground that it bas been superseded by an appeal therefrom to the United States supreme court, nor to enjoin state oflScials or other offlcers from disregarding such a supersedeas. �2. Same — SuPEBME Court. �In such cases, the application for an injunction must be made to the United States supreme court, or a judge thereof. �In Equity. �Cheeter H. Crum, for complainantB. �Leverett Bell, for defendants. ; �McCbaey, C. J. The judges.of the circuit court have power to grant writs of injunction only in cases where they might be granted by the circuit court. If the case is one in which an injunction might bB' granted hy the supreme court,; then application must be made to that court, or to a judge thereof. Eev. St. § 719. �The Gomplainants claim to be the owners of a certain franchise known as the "Missouri State Lottery." The attorney general of Missouri reoently inStituted a proceeding by quo warranta against com- plainants in the supreme court of Missouri, alleging that said fran- chise ceased and expired on the first day of January, 1878, and praying judgiuent of ouster. Issue was joined, and upon final hear- ing judgmfent of ouSter was rendered by the said supreme court of Missouri. �The bill alleges in substance that the record of that case presented to the supreme court of Missouri for decision a federal question, to- ■wit : Whether, under certain statutes of Missouri, and certain con- traets made thereunder, and by virtue of certain decisions of the supreme court of that state, there was a contract extending beyond the first day of January, 1878, the obligation of which would be im- pared by denying to complainants the right to carry on business as a lottery company after that date. This federal question having been decided adversely to complainants, the bill avers that they sued out a writ of error to the supreme court of the United States, and filed a bond, which, being duly approved, operates as a supersedeas. �The complainants' claim is that, having given a supersedeas bond, it 13 their right to continue their business as a lottery company, pend- ��� �