205 F.Supp. 245 (M.D.Ala. 1962), Civ. A. 1744, Sims v. Frink

Docket Nº:Civ. A. 1744
Citation:205 F.Supp. 245
Party Name:Sims v. Frink
Case Date:April 14, 1962
Court:United States District Courts, 11th Circuit, Middle District of Alabama
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 245

205 F.Supp. 245 (M.D.Ala. 1962)

M. O. SIMS, Fred A. Beam, Wylie Johnson, G. R. Southard, Miles S. Lee, Paul Friedman, Wm. Lindsay Williams, William P. Shaw, Jr., Prentice W. Thomas, Richard D. Tannehill, Paul M. Byrne, David R. Baker, Charles Morgan, Jr., and George Peach Taylor; Intervenors: R. E. Farr, Marshal Meadows, Jack Hopping, Jack Ryan, and Max W. Morgan, Plaintiffs,

v.

Bettye FRINK, Secretary of State of the State of Alabama; Harrell Hammonds, Judge of Probate of Lowndes County, Alabama; John A. Sankey, Judge of Probate of Montgomery County, Alabama; J. Paul Meeks, Judge of Probate of Jefferson County, Alabama; C. O. Vardaman, Chairman of the Alabama State Republican Executive Committee; O. P. Drake, Secretary of the Alabama State Republican Executive Committee; Sam Engelhardt, Chairman of the Alabama State Democratic Executive Committee; H. G. Rains, Secretary of the Alabama State Democratic Executive Committee; MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1744-N.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

April 14, 1962

Page 246

Charles Morgan, Jr., George Peach Taylor, Robert M. Loeb, and Kenneth Howell, Birmingham, Ala., for all plaintiffs except intervenors.

Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., for intervenors.

Boswell & Smith, Geneva, Ala., for defendant Harrell Hammonds.

Roy D. McCord, Gadsden, Ala., and H. G. Rains, Guntersville, Ala., for defendants Sam Engelhardt and H. G. Rains.

MacDonald Gallion, Montgomery, Ala., Bettye Frink, and J. Paul Meeks, pro se.

No appearances were filed for defendants John A. Sankey, C. O. Vardaman and O. P. Drake.

Before RIVES, Circuit Judge, and THOMAS and JOHNSON, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In the order setting for a hearing plaintiffs' application for interlocutory injunction, we expressed the view that Section 2284 of Title 28 United States Code placed upon this Court the mandatory

Page 247

duty to set the application for a hearing 'at the earliest practicable day.' The same principle, together with the importance of the case and the necessity for some effective action within a limited time, requires an early announcement of our views.

We remain of the same opinion that was expressed in the order setting the application for hearing, viz.: until the Legislature has had a further reasonable but...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP