The question then arises, was the Circuit Court justified in staying the proceedings in the case, and withholding further action until the case involving the same question might be brought and determined in the state court? We think that there can be but one answer to this question. The case made upon the bill was within the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States. The right of the Circuit Court to maintain such actions, notwithstanding the legislation of the State creating probate courts, has been so recently before this court as to require no further consideration now. Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank, 215 U. S. 33. In that case, following previous decisions of this court, it was held that the chancery jurisdiction of the Federal courts to entertain suits between citizens of different States to determine interests in estates, and to have the same fixed and declared, having existed from the beginning of the Federal government, and created by the grant of equity jurisdiction to such courts as it existed in the chancery courts of England, could not be impaired by subsequent state legislation creating courts of probate. The action was therefore within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States.

So far as the record presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals shows, the only ground upon which the Circuit Court acted in postponing the suit was because the State of South Dakota, which had applied to be made a party, and which application was denied, was about to begin a suit in the state court to determine an escheat of the estate of John C. McClellan, therefore the action was stayed, first, until the beginning of such suit, and then until it was determined. It, therefore, appeared upon the record presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals that the Circuit Court had practically abandoned its jurisdiction over a case of which it had cognizance, and turned the matter over for adjudication to the state court. This, it has been steadily held, a Federal court may not do. Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529, 534.

It cannot be denied that a Circuit Court of the United

States, like other courts, had power to postpone the trial of cases for good reasons, but by the orders made in this case the Federal court withheld the further exercise of its authority until the state court, by its action in a case involving all the parties, might render a judgment which would be res judicata, and thus prevent further proceedings in the Federal court.

The rule is well recognized that the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction, for both the state and Federal courts have certain concurrent jurisdiction over such controversies, and when they arise between citizens of different States the Federal jurisdiction may be invoked, and the cause carried to judgment, notwithstanding a state court may also have taken jurisdiction of the same case. In the present case, so far as the record before the Circuit Court of Appeals discloses, the Circuit Court of the United States had acquired jurisdiction, the issues were made up, and when the State intervened the Federal court practically turned the case over for determination to the state court. We think it had no authority to do this, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals, upon the record before it, should have issued the writ of mandamus to require the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States to show cause why he did not proceed to hear and determine the case.

Whether the State ought to have been allowed to intervene in the Federal court is not a question now before us; but, if not made a party to the suit, its rights would not have been concluded by any adjudication made therein. Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, 223.

We have thus far considered the case upon the record made in the Circuit Court of Appeals and certified here upon the writ of certiorari. In this court the honorable judge of the District Court entered special appearance, and filed an affidavit as to the proceedings before him, in which much appears which is not in the record presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals. In that appearance and affidavit the petition in intervention

filed in the Circuit Court of the United States is set forth in full, as well as certain affidavits which were filed. We shall not enter upon a consideration of these papers, because they are not in the record, as the same has been certified to us from the Circuit Court of Appeals as the one upon which it acted, and declined to issue the writ of mandamus. They set forth at length certain proceedings in the state courts of South Dakota, in which it is alleged that the issue of the right of the complainants in the equity suit to take the estate of John C. McClellan, as his heirs at law, was determined adversely to them, and that such proceedings were had as showed that further proceedings in reference to the escheat of the estate of McClellan for want of legal heirs ought to be determined by proceedings in the state court. In making his appearance in this court, and in presenting these papers, it is evident that the District Judge was much influenced in ordering the stay of proceedings, and withholding judgment until the state court had rendered its judgment, by the proceedings already had in the state courts of South Dakota.

As we have said, we do not pass upon the sufficiency of those proceedings to authorize the orders in question. We must take the case as it is presented here upon the stipulated return to the writ of certiorari on the record as presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon that record, we think, the Circuit Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the writ of mandamus, but should have ordered the alternative writ, or an order to show cause, to issue, in order that the District Judge might have been fully heard before the question was determined as to whether mandamus should issue or not.

We shall, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court, with directions to issue the alternative writ, or an order to show cause. All we decide is that upon the petition and record made in the Circuit Court of Appeals and as now presented by the transcript filed in this court such alternative writ or order to show cause ought to have issued. The judgment dismissing

the petition is reversed and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings, as herein indicated. Reversed.

BRANTLEY v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

No. 692. Argued April 6, 1910.-Decided April 11, 1910.

Where one has been tried in a state court for murder and convicted of manslaughter, and, on his own motion, obtains a reversal and new trial, on which he is convicted of a higher offense, and the constitution of the State provides that no one shall be put in second jeopardy for the same offense save on his own motion for new trial or in case of mistrial, there is no question involved of twice in jeopardy under the Constitution of the United States.

132 Georgia, 573, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. John Randolph Cooper for plaintiff in error.

Mr. John C. Hart, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, for defendant in error, submitted.

PER CURIAM: Brantley was indicted in the Superior Court of Washington County, Georgia, charged with the offense of murder; was tried and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter; filed a motion for new trial, and upon appeal to the state Court of Appeals obtained a reversal of the judgment, and a new trial was ordered.

At the second trial he filed a plea of former jeopardy, claiming that he had been tried for murder, and having been found guilty of a lesser grade of homicide that operated to acquit him of the charge of murder, and to try him again for murder under the same indictment would be to try him again for an

offense of which he had been previously acquitted, and that he could only be arraigned for voluntary manslaughter. This plea was demurred to and the demurrer sustained by the court. The case then proceeded to trial, and the jury found him guilty of murder, whereupon he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He moved for new trial, which motion was overruled, and thereupon he appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Brantley v. State, 132 Georgia, 573.

The constitution of the State of Georgia provides that "No person shall be put in jeopardy of life or liberty more than once for the same offense, save on his or her own motion for new trial, after conviction, or in case of mistrial." This writ of error was sued out and plaintiff in error contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia was in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that the provision of the constitution of the State of Georgia was null and void as construed by the state Supreme Court.

The contention is absolutely without merit. It was not a case of twice in jeopardy under any view of the Constitution of the United States.

Judgment affirmed.