Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Farmers' Loan And Trust Company v. Newman

• 1887 • 127 U.S. 649 • Waite Court
Farmers' Loan and Trust Company v. Newman was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enjoin a federal court from hearing a case. The case arose when the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company sought to enjoin the Newman brothers from collecting a debt from the company. The Newmans argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the power to...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1887
Docket: 253
127 U.S. 649
8 S. Ct. 1364
32 L. Ed. 303
1888 U.S. LEXIS 2029
Argued: Apr 25, 1888

Farmers' Loan And Trust Company v. Newman

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Farmers' Loan and Trust Company v. Newman was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enjoin a federal court from hearing a case. The case arose when the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company sought to enjoin the Newman brothers from collecting a debt from the company. The Newmans argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the power to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the federal court's jurisdiction. The Court further held that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's jurisdiction by enjoining the federal court from hearing the case. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the jurisdiction of federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal court jurisdiction.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Farmers' Loan and Trust Company v. Newman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against a resident of that state. The majority opinion held that the state court did have such jurisdiction, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that under the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, states are required to give effect to judgments rendered in other states; thus, if another court has already heard an action between two parties who were both residents of its own state at the time it was filed, then no other court should be allowed to hear it again unless there is some special reason for doing so. Furthermore, he argued that allowing multiple courts with concurrent jurisdiction would lead to confusion and uncertainty as well as create opportunities for fraud or collusion among litigants seeking favorable rulings from different courts on identical issues.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: May 14, 1888
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms