Opinion of the Court.

"A. And the business upon the Exchange."

205 U.S.

It is manifest that the injury to the Exchange is not the rate paid by the appellant to the Telegraph Company. The purpose of the suit is to enjoin the appellant from receiving, using or selling, directly or indirectly, the Exchange's quotations or permitting or maintaining any wire to his office over which the quotations are passing, or distributing the quotations, until he shall have acquired the right to receive them either by contract of purchase from the Exchange, or with its consent and approval, from one of the Telegraph Companies authorized to distribute them. In other words, the object of the suit is to keep the control of the quotations by the Exchange and its protection from the competition of bucket shops or the identity of it's business with that of bucket shops. And the right to the quotations was declared, as we said in Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Company, to be property, and the Exchange may keep them to itself or communicate them to others. The object of this suit is to protect that right. The right, therefore, is the matter in dispute, and its value to the Exchange determines the jurisdiction, not the rate paid by appellant to the Telegraph Company. The value of the right was testified to be much greater than $2,000. In Mississippi & Missouri Railroad Company v. Ward, 2 Black, 485, it was decided that jurisdiction is tested by the value of the object to be gained by the bill. To the same effect is Board of Trade v. Cella Commission Company, 145 Fed. Rep. 28. In the latter suit the Chicago Board of Trade obtained a decree restraining the use of its continuous quotations by the Cella Commission Company. It was said that the amount or value of such right is not the sum a complainant might recover in an action at law for the damage already sustained, nor is he required to wait until it reaches the jurisdictional amount. The latter declaration is supported by Scott v. Donnell, 165 U. S. 107.

Counsel for appellant do not deny that jurisdiction is determinable by the object sought to be accomplished by the bill,

but they assert that the value of that was speculative and changed with the volume of business. Counsel lay great stress on the testimony of the superintendent of the Exchange, to the effect that the value of the contract between the Exchange and the Telegraph Company, independent of the business diverted from the Exchange, is, in dollars and cents, the amount it receives from the Telegraph Company. Upon this testimony counsel assert the right claimed by the Exchange to be the narrow one of preventing the appellant from receiving the continuous quotations from the Telegraph Company, which he pays for, pending a litigation in the state courts, and this distinguishes the case from the Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Company, and contend that the jurisdictional amount has not been established, as the Telegraph Company is fulfilling its contract with the Exchange. Of the latter contention we have sufficiently indicated our view, and it is only necessary to add that because the value of the quotations to the Exchange varies with the volume of business does not impair the effect of the testimony that the value of its right to control them is "much greater than $2,000." We cannot concur in the conclusion urged by appellant that this case is distinguishable in principle from Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Company, either in the right asserted or in the defense against it. Even if the cases were distinguishable, it might still be contended, that would be of no consequence in determining the jurisdictional amount of the matter in dispute. But we will consider the difference claimed to exist between the cases. In the Christie case, it is contended, the right asserted was "to prevent getting at the knowledge of a trade secret or the quotations of the market surreptitiously, and using the knowledge so obtained," and that, it is insisted, was the matter in controversy. "Here," it is said, "there is no violation of a duty or trust. The market quotations are not received surreptitiously. The appellant is not depriving the appellee of the protection of the law." In the Christie case the quotations were gotten and published, "in some way not

VOL. CCV-22

disclosed," but, it was said, as the defendants did not get them from the Telegraph Companies authorized to distribute them, had declined to sign contracts satisfactory to the plaintiff (Board of Trade) and denied the plaintiff's rights altogether, it was a reasonable conclusion that they got, and intended to get, their knowledge in a way which was wrongful. This, however, was not said to limit the plaintiff's right but to express a violation of it. The right was clearly defined to be, the right of the Board of Trade to keep the quotations to itself or communicate them to others. And this is also the right of the Exchange in the case at bar. It can be violated not only by getting the quotations surreptitiously or "in some way not disclosed," or by getting them from a person forbidden to communicate them.

The next contention of appellant is that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction and pronounce the decree appealed from. The only question involved in this branch of the case, appellant says, is "whether it comes within the provision of the Revised Statutes, § 720, which is to the effect that no writ of injunction shall be granted by a court of the United States to stay proceedings of any court except in matters of bankruptcy."

And, appellant insists, that this suit necessarily offends that section, because under its decree he "cannot have the benefit of the judgment of the state court without being in contempt of the Federal court," and that he is restrained by the Circuit Court from receiving from the Telegraph Company what the company is forbidden to refuse him by the state court. To sustain his contention appellant cites United States v. Parkhurst Davis Mercantile Company, 176 U. S. 317, and cases there referred to. Also Diggs v. Woolford, 4 Cranch, 179; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 579; Dyall v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; Central &c. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 433. These cases do not sustain his contention. In Central Bank v. Stevens it was decided that a state court had no power to enjoin a party whose rights had been adjudged by a Circuit Court of

the United States from proceeding with a sale of property under a decree of that court. In the other cases cited, except Watson v. Jones, the purpose was to directly enjoin parties from proceeding in the state courts. In Watson v. Jones was considered what identity of parties, rights and relief prayed for were necessary to enable the pendency of an action in one court to be pleaded in bar in another court, and it was said: "The identity in these particulars should be such that if the pending case had already been disposed of, it could be pleaded in bar as a former adjudication of the same matter between the same parties." The principle was also expressed in that case, and sustained by authorities, that the possession of property by one court cannot be interfered with by another, and, that "The act of Congress of March 2, 1793 (now § 720 of the Revised Statutes of the United States) as construed in Diggs v. Walcott, 4 Cranch, 179, and Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 625, are equally conclusive against any injunctions from the Circuit Court, forbidding the defendants in the case to take possession of property which an unexecuted decree of a state court required the marshal to deliver to them." The case at bar has not that feature, nor has it identity with the case in the Chancery Court of Shelby County. Its parties and purposes are different. The pendency of a suit in a state court does not deprive a Federal court of jurisdiction. Gordon v. Gilfoil, 99 U. S. 168; Insurance Co. v. Brunes' Assignee, 96 U. S. 588; Stanton et al. v. Embrey, Administrator, 93 U. S. 548; Merritt v. American Barge Co., 79 Fed. Rep. 228; Bank of Kentucky v. Stone, 88 Fed. Rep. 383.

The Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and its decree is

Affirmed.

WILLIAM W. BIERCE, LIMITED, A CORPORATION, v. HUTCHINS.

No. 212. Argued March 20, 21, 1907.-Decided April 8, 1907.

In an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, tried by the court of first instance without a jury, where the Supreme Court of the Territory reversed the conclusions of law, but took the finding of fact as true, and those findings are not open to dispute, but the question for decision is definite and plain, there is no need to send the case back for a statement of facts by the Supreme Court of the Territory, although one should have been made.

Election is simply what its name imports; a choice shown by an overt act between two inconsistent rights either of which may be asserted at the will of the chooser alone. Transfer is different from election and requires acts of a different import on the part of the owner and corresponding acts on the part of the transferee.

The fact that a party, through mistake, attempts to exercise a right to which he is not entitled does not prevent his afterwards exercising one which he had and still has unless barred by the previous attempt. The absolute liability for the price and putting that liability in the form of a note are consistent with the retention of title until the note is paid; and, in the absence of statute, a stipulation that the sale is conditional and the goods remain the property of the seller, until payment of a note given for the price is lawful and enforceable in replevin even where, as in this case, possession was given and additional security of mortgage bonds was required:

16 Hawaii, 717, reversed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Charles H. Aldrich, with whom Mr. Henry W. Prouty and Mr. Henry S. McAuley were on the brief, for appellant: The findings of fact by the trial court were adopted by the Supreme Court of the Territory, though different legal conclusions were held to follow from such facts. This is equivalent to a special finding by the Supreme Court. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Harrison v. Perea, 168 U. S. 311, 323, and cases there cited.