Aguirre v. Sobrinos de Ezquiaga. MODESTO MUNITIZ AGUIRRE V. SOBRINOS DE EZQUIAGA. San Juan, Equity, No. 381. 1. The United States district court for Porto Rico has no jurisdiction to enjoin judgments of the local courts in cases where the latter have first, properly and legally, acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties. 2. The United States court will not entertain a bill of review as to matters litigated in the insular courts. 3. A party who chooses his forum must abide the result. 4. United States Revised Statutes, § 720 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 581), construed. 5. Luce v. Mullenhoff, ante, p. 56, distinguished. 6. Issues decided between the same parties in the insular courts are res judicata in so far as the United States district court for Porto Rico is concerned. Opinion filed September 7, 1906. Messrs. Hartzell & Rodriguez Serra, solicitors for plaintiff. Francis H. Dexter, Esq., solicitor for defendants. RODEY, Judge, delivered the following opinion: This cause is before the court on the amended plea and an Aguirre v. Sobrinos de Ezquiaga. swer of the defendants and their motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case. For a complete understanding of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary briefly to review the facts. It appears that the defendants and their predecessors (composed of part of themselves) have been for many years merchants of considerable financial capacity in the city of San Juan, and that the complainant was for many years a merchant and coffee raiser at Cayey, down in the middle of the island of Porto Rico. In 1893, the complainant and the defendants entered into a contract whereby the latter were to turn over to him some coffee plantations and their plants and appurtenances at said Cayey, which he was to carry on in connection with a mercantile business there, and were also to permit him to open an account in their business establishment at San Juan, where they agreed to extend a merchandise and other credit to him to the extent of $25,000, which, under an addendum to the agreement, was to be increased under certain conditions. The complainant was to be charged no interest upon the account current, but was to make continuous proper payments out of the cash received in his mercantile business as he might think proper, and to send all coffee he raised or procured to them, for which he was to be credited at the market price at the time the same was received. The profits made by the complainant were to be divided equally between the respective parties. Presumably, the profits made upon the goods sold to the complainant were, in part, the consideration for the extending of the credit, the lending of the plantations, and the waiving of interest on the open account. There were some other provisions in this contract, such as a provision that the complainant would notify these merchants if he got into any tight place financially, and in such case it was provided they would have a right, at their option, to take hold of his business. Aguirre v. Sobrinos de Ezquiaga. and liquidate it; or either party might end the contract on six months' notice to the other, etc. It had other minor provisions unnecessary to mention. The parties commenced business under this management, and continued the same for about ten years, that is, from February, 1893, to May, 1904, the defendants furnishing immense quantities of merchandise and cash to the complainant, amounting, probably, to more than a million dollars in the meantime, and he remitting cash and coffee to them as he saw fit, and presumably receiving his statements of account from time to time. The transactions, as stated, amounted to several hundreds of thousands of dollars between each reckoning period during the ten years. At the end of this period, the defendants evidently became dissatisfied, and canceled the agreement. Litigation ensued, which was carried on through several different sorts of proceedings, in their efforts to collect the balance which they claimed was due to them from the complainant, and in their efforts to retake possession of their coffee plantations. It appears that the complainant herein in the insular courts, where all this litigation occurred, set up as a defense the fact that a partnership existed between the parties, upon which contention he was beaten at every turn in the local courts. After such information on that subject as this court has been able to gather from the pleadings before it, including a copy of the contract between the parties, it is constrained to say, even though it is not necessary to a decision of the points now involved, that it believes this holding of the local courts was right. After the complainant herein had been beaten in his contention that the relation between himself and defendants was a partnership, he proceeded to defend against the suit of the defendants for a balance due on account current between the parties, which defendants claimed amounted to some $80,000, but the result Aguirre v. Sobrinos de Ezquiaga. was a judgment against him for approximately that amount. From this judgment he appealed to the supreme court of the island, which court affirmed the decision of the lower court. When the case was remanded to the lower court, the defendants called for an execution on the judgment, but the complainant made an effort there to enjoin the further prosecution of defendants' suit, on the ground that he had some proceeding still pending about this partnership matter; but his efforts in that behalf were denied. Then he came into this court and filed his bill of complaint, showing that, from the beginning of the litigation between the parties, this court had had complete jurisdiction, because all of the parties to it were subjects of the King of Spain. He set up the contract of 1893 between the parties, alleged a partnership between them, recited the fact of the judgment against him for this large amount of money, and, in brief, set out that during the years while the contract existed and while he had been receiving from the defendants these large amounts of cash and merchandise continuously, and had been sending them payments of cash and consignments of coffee, that they fraudulently failed and neglected to credit him with the full market price of the coffee on the days it was received by them, although he had reposed full confidence in them for that purpose, and that the difference in his favor would be some $30,000, were these credits properly entered in his favor, and that he had been charged something over $5,000 in the account of the defendants on account of one half the discount of changing the money, in the transactions between the parties, from the circulating medium in Porto Rico to United States currency at the time the law obliged that to be done. He also recited the number of suits that had been brought against him by the defendants, and he set up the fact that only within a short time previously had it come to his knowledge that the defendants had not credited him Aguirre v. Sobrinos de Ezquiaga. with a proper price for his coffee at the several times it was sent to the defendants; and made several other allegations that it is not deemed necessary to refer to here. Then he prayed for an accounting between the parties, and that, after it should be had, the defendants should be restrained from attempting to collect any other or different amount than should be found due by this court, and prayed for an injunction in the meantime to prevent the execution from issuing on the $80,000 judgment in the local court against him. This court, through a previous judge, granted a temporary restraining order after the filing of a bond in the premises, and the same was issued. Thereafter, the defendants moved for a dissolution of this temporary injunction, and the same was argued at length before the present judge, and briefs were filed in support of the respective contentions. One examination of the matter, we refused to pass upon the question of the dissolution of the temporary injunction, for the reason that, if the court had jurisdiction, the injunction ought to be permitted to stand; and if the court was without jurisdiction, the whole cause should be dismissed; and thereupon ordered a full argument of the cause upon the motion, the plea, and the sworn answer in support of the plea. This argument was thereafter had, and subsequent to it, counsel filed additional elaborate briefs in the premises. We have given considerable time to the consideration of the whole subject-matter as thus finally presented, and we are unable to see how this court has any jurisdiction to intermeddle in the controversy at all. In so far as the court can see, the matter is res judicata, and the complainant has no standing here. Sec. 720 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 581), which, of course, is applicable to pro ceedings in this court, provides that: "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay |