in equity on the ground that an adequate remedy exists at law by legislation prescribing remedies at law, though those remedies were simpler than the equitable remedy.so The state law is not only inapplicable on questions as to the method of setting aside judgments by the court which rendered them, but, a fortiori, it is still less applicable to proceedings for the review of a judgment.81 The act of August 1, 1888,82 provides as follows: "That judgments and decrees rendered in a circuit or district court of the United States within any state, shall be liens on property throughout such state in the same manner and to the same extent and under the same conditions only as if such judgments and decrees had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction of such state: provided, that whenever the laws of any state require a judgment or decree of a state court to be registered, recorded, docketed, indexed, or any other thing to be done, in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county, or parish in the state of Louisiana before a lien shall attach, this act shall be applicable therein whenever and only whenever the laws of such state shall authorize the judgments and decrees of the United States courts to be registered, recorded, docketed, indexed, or otherwise conformed to the rules and requirements relating to the judgments and decrees of the courts of the state." Under this act it has been held that, in case the state where the federal court sits permits or requires its officers to docket federal judgments, a judgment of the federal court is not a lien on lands in every county of the district, but is only a lien in the special county where the court is 80 Post, p. 419. 81 West v. East Coast Cedar Co., 113 Fed. 737, 51 C. C. A. 411; Friedly v. Giddings (C. C.) 119 Fed. 438; Giddings v. Freedley, 128 Fed. 355, 63 C. C. A. 85, 65 L. R. A. 327; Knight v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 180 Fed. 368, 103 C. C. A. 514. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (KeyNo.) § 356; Cent. Dig. § 937; "Appeal and Error," Cent. Dig. § 3397. 82 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 701. sitting, unless it is also docketed in the state clerk's office of the other counties.8 83 A judgment in the federal courts is not a lien on property of the debtor fraudulently conveyed by a conveyance good as between the debtor and the fraudulent grantee, and dated previous to the judgment.84 The authorities bearing on the lien of federal judgments are well collated in the footnote to Blair v. Ostrander.85 SAME-EXECUTION 151. State remedies in the nature of execution in force on June 1, 1872, and any later ones adopted by rule of court, are available in the federal courts in common-law causes. In reference to executions, section 916 of the Revised Statutes se provides: 86 "The party recovering a judgment in any common-law cause in any circuit or district court, shall be entitled to similar remedies upon the same, by execution or otherwise, to reach the property of the judgment debtor, as are now provided in like causes by the laws of the state in which such court is held, or by any such laws hereafter enacted which may be adopted by general rules of such circuit or district court; and such courts may, from time to time, by general rules, adopt such state laws as may hereafter be in 83 Dartmouth Sav. Bank v. Bates (C. C.) 44 Fed. 546. See "Judgment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 778; Cent. Dig. § 1339. 84 Luhrs v. Hancock, 181 U. S. 567, 21 Sup. Ct. 726, 45 L. Ed. 1005. See “Judgment,” Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 779; Cent. Dig. §§ 1340, 1342. 85 47 L. R. A. 469; Id., 109 Iowa, 204, 80 N. W. 330, 77 Am. St. Rep. 532. See, also, Great Falls Nat. Bank v. McClure, 176 Fed. 208, 99 C. C. A. 562. A state statute of limitations to the enforcement of judgments applies in the federal courts. General Electric Co. v. Hurd (C. C.) 171 Fed. 984. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) 354; Cent. Dig. § 934. 86 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 684. force in such state in relation to remedies upon judgments, as aforesaid, by execution or otherwise." Under this statute only the remedies in the state court in the nature of an execution which were in existence when that statute was passed-that is, on June 1, 1872—are available in the federal courts, unless the federal court has by rule adopted subsequent state legislation on the subject.87 Under section 985 of the Revised Statutes 88 executions of the federal court may run into another district of the same state. Under section 987 89 the court has power to grant a stay of execution for certain purposes.90 Section 990 of the Revised Statutes 1 provides as follows: "No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any state, on process issuing from a court of the United States, where, by the laws of such state, imprisonment for debt has been or shall be abolished. And all modifications, conditions, and restrictions upon imprisonment for debt, provided by the laws of any state, shall be applicable to the process issuing from the courts of the United States to be executed therein; and the same course of proceedings shall be adopted therein as may be adopted in the courts of such state." 92 Under section 993,93 any appraisement of goods taken 87 Canal &C. Streets R. Co. v. Hart, 114 U. S. 654, 5 Sup. Ct. 1127, 29 L. Ed. 226; Lamaster v. Keeler, 123 U. S. 376, 8 Sup. Ct. 197, 31 L. Ed. 238. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 354; Cent. Dig. § 934. 88 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 707. 89 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 708. 90 Eaton v. Cleveland, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. (C. C.) 41 Fed. 421; Sanborn v. Bay, 194 Fed. 37, 114 C. C. A. 57. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 356; Cent. Dig. § 937; "Appeal and Error," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 460. 91 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 709. 92 In re Bergen, 2 Hughes, 513, Fed. Cas. No. 1,338; Stroheim v. Deimel, 77 Fed. 802, 23 C. C. A. 467; Hayes v. Canada, A. & P. S. S. Co., 184 Fed. 821, 108 C. C. A. 175. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (KeyNo.) 355; Cent. Dig. § 936. 93 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 709. on a writ of execution which is required by the state laws must be followed by the federal courts. The federal courts also have power to set aside sales under writs of execution. Mere inadequacy of price alone would not result in a resale; but where the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience, and especially where unfair and questionable methods have been resorted to, the court will not hesitate to set the sale aside.94 The act of March 3, 1893,95 lays down important rules in reference to the sale of property under orders of the federal court. It can, however, be best discussed in connection with the chancery procedure of the federal courts. 94 SCHROEDER v. YOUNG, 161 U. S. 334, 16 Sup. Ct. 512, 40 L. Ed. 721. See "Execution," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 250, 251; Cent. Dig. 697-716. 95 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 710. HUGHES FED.PR.(2D ED.)-27 CHAPTER XIX PROCEDURE IN THE ORDINARY FEDERAL COURTS OF 152. 153. 154. General Limits of Equitable Jurisdiction. The Equity Procedure in the Federal Courts-How Regulated. 155. Same Same-Injunction Bills. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. Same-Same-Judges who may issue injunctions. Same Same-Injunctions to State Courts. Same-Same-Injunctions to State Officials or Boards. Same-Defaults. Same The Defense-Motions. GENERAL LIMITS OF EQUITABLE JURISDIC TION 152. The general limits of the equitable jurisdiction of the federal courts are those that prevailed in the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The distinction between law and equity in the federal courts is made in the Constitution itself, and naturally the jurisdiction in equity which the framers of the Constitution had in mind was that jurisdiction as it prevailed at the time when the Constitution was adopted.1 It is practically the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chancery in England as it then existed.2 Section 267 of the Judicial Code provides as follows: "Suits in equity shall not be sustained in any court of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law." 1 Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 252, 8 L. Ed. 675. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 335; Cent. Dig. §§ 902-9072. 2 Ante, p. 223. |