Summary

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Company…

For the determination of the validity of the Interpleader Act we need not decide whether the words of the Constitution, 'Controversies * * * between citizens of different States,' have a different meaning from that given by judicial construction to similar words in the Judiciary Act. Even though the constitutional language limits the judicial power to controversies wholly between citizens of different states, that requirement is satisfied here.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Company…

The occasion for the interpleader was the existence of inconsistent judgments as to the ownership of the Sunshine stock. The Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington, in administering the estate of Amelia Pelkes, adjudged that it was the property of John Pelkes, assignor of petitioner, Evelyn H. Treinies, and the District Court of Shoshone County, Idaho, adjudged that the same property belonged to respondent, Katherine Mason. They are the sole disputants. Other parties may be disregarded.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Company…

The holding by the Idaho court of no jurisdiction in Washington necessarily determined the question raised here as to the Idaho jurisdiction against Miss Treinies' contention. She is bound by that judgment.
The power of the Idaho court to examine into the jurisdiction of the Washington court is beyond question. [22] Even where the decision against validity of the original judgment is erroneous, it is a valid exercise of judicial power by the second court. [23]
One trial of an issue is enough.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature