U. S. v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 612, 26 L. Ed. 1135 .581, 643, 651 U. S. v. Reeves, Fed. Cas. No. Woods, 199 16,139, 3 .901, 902 U. S. v. Clune (D. C.) 62 Fed. 798. 909 U. S. v. Cobban (C. C.) 127 Fed. 713.. 907 U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 174, 21 L. Ed. 538 ..641, 643 U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 557, 558, 559, 23 L. Ed. 588. 641, 643, 652, 656, 658, 659 U. S. v. Cutajar, 14 C. C. A. 515, 67 Fed. 530 .... U. S. v. Royall, 3 Cranch, C. C. 618, Fed. Cas. No. 16,201... 647 548 651 909 652 Wabash R. Co. v. Trust Co. (C. C.) 23 Fed. .555, 556 Washington, etc., Packet Co. v. Sickles, 24 ..820 Wilkinson v. Dobbie, 12 Blatchf. 298, Fed. Williams v. Insurance Co. (C. C.) 24 Fed. 686 Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 12. 163 904 5 979 Western Telephone Co. v. Telephone Co. (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. 78. 854 501 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hall, 124 U. S. 414-456, 8 Sup. Ct. 577, 31 L. Ed. 479.. 502 Wilson v. Trust Co., 52 C. C. A. 374, 114 Fed. 742 361 77 712 363 Witherell v. Wiberg, 4 Sawy. 232, Fed. 442 Worthington v. Boston (C. C.) 41 Fed. 23 791 Wright v. Oakley, 5 Metc. (Mass.) 400, 406 143 Wright v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 42 S. W. 789 Woodfin v. Insurance Co., 51 N. C. 558.... 291 Worcester Co., In re, 4 Am. Bankr. Rep. 501, 42 C. C. A. 637, 102 Fed. 808... Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 451, 5 L. Ed. 651 36 24 Young v. Black, 7 Cranch, 565, 3 L. Ed. 440 555 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS. GERMAN SAVINGS & LOAN SOC. v. TULL et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 6, 1905.) No. 1,096. 1. FEDERAL COURTS-JURISDICTION-SUIT FOR PARTITION. A suit for partition is a local action within the provisions of Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 8, 18 Stat. 472 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 513], and one in which any question between any of the parties, plaintiffs or defendants, affecting their rights or interests in the land may be put in issue and determined; and a federal court is not without jurisdiction because questions may arise between plaintiffs who are citizens of the same state, nor will it make a realignment of parties to defeat its jurisdiction because such questions may arise, where the bill, although properly setting out the interest of each party in the premises, does not disclose any controversy which renders it necessary. 2. ABATEMENT-ANOTHER ACTION PENDING-FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. The pendency of a suit in a state court cannot be pleaded in bar of a suit between the same parties on the same cause of action in a federal court. [Ed. Note. For cases in point, see vol. 1, Cent. Dig. Abatement and Revival, §§ 87-92. Pendency of action in state or federal court as ground for abatement of action in the other, see note to Bunker Hill & Sullivan M. & C. Co. v. Shoshone M. Co., 47 C. C. A. 205.] 3. RES JUDICATA-VALIDITY OF JUDGMENT-AFFIRMANCE IN DIRECT PROCEEDINGS. Where a question as to the validity of a judgment of the Supreme Court of a state was raised in such court by a petition for rehearing, and decided adversely to the petitioner, who thereupon removed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error, where the same question was raised, and the judgment of the state court was affirmed, such question is res judicata, and cannot be again raised collaterally between the parties. 4. SAME-MATTERS CONCLUDED BY JUDGMENT. The heirs of a deceased wife brought suit in a state court to recover a half interest in certain real estate as community property in which their mother's interest descended to them. At the time of her death plaintiffs were minors, and their interests in the property were thereafter sold and conveyed by their guardian to their father under an order 136 F.-1 |