In the case of Enelow v. New York Life Insurance Co., 1934, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a federal court could issue an injunction to stay proceedings in a suit at law on equitable grounds when both suits are pending before it. The dispute arose from Mr. Enelow's claim that his insurance policy had been wrongfully terminated by New York Life Insurance Company due to non-payment of premiums, while he argued that he had not received proper notice for payment and therefore termination was unjustified. The district court granted an injunction against its own proceedings at law until determination of equity issues raised by defendant’s answer which included fraud and mistake claims as defenses against plaintiff’s action for recovery under life insurance policies. The Supreme Court held that such an injunction is allowable under Section 274b (now Rule 65) of the Judicial Code, even though both actions were pending in front of the same court because they involved different forms or methods - one legal and other equitable - within judicial process itself rather than between separate courts or tribunals.

In the dissenting opinion for ENELOW v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 274b of the Judicial Code, which allows a stay in proceedings when equitable relief is sought. He argued that this section should not apply to cases where legal and equitable claims are mixed together, as was done by Enelow. According to him, granting such stays would disrupt normal court procedures and lead to unnecessary delays in litigation. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for federal courts to intervene in state law matters unless there were significant constitutional issues at stake or if there were clear violations of federal law involved. In his view, neither condition applied here; thus he believed that New York Life Insurance Co.'s claim should have been dismissed outright instead of being stayed pending an appeal.