Fenner v. Boykin, 308

Decision Date24 May 1926
Docket NumberNo. 308,308
Citation271 U.S. 240,46 S.Ct. 492,70 L.Ed. 927
PartiesFENNER et al. v. BOYKIN et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Arthur G. Powell, of Atlanta, Ga., Thomas W. Hardwick, of Dublin, Ga., and Marion Smith, Max F. Goldstein, and John D. Little, all of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from page 241 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Hooper Alexander and James W. Austin, both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal is without merit, and the interlocutory decree below must be affirmed.

By an Act approved August 20, 1906, the Legislature of Georgia declared unlawful certain agreements for the purchase or sale, for future delivery, of designated commodities, and made participation therein a misdemeanor. It also prohibited maintenance of an office where such agreements are offered, and specified what should constitute prima facie evidence of guilty connection therewith. Laws 1906, p. 95.

Appellees, Boykin and Lowry, are the solicitor general and sheriff of Fulton county, Ga., charged respectively with the general duty of prosecuting and arresting offenders.

Subsequent to the passage of the act of 1906, appellants, citizens of states other than Georgia, established in Fulton county a branch office, with the ordinary quotation board, where they solicited and received orders, accompanied by margins, to purchase or sell cotton for future delivery on the New York and New Orleans Exchanges. They were threatened with arrest and prosecution for violating the act of 1906. By a bill in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia they challenged the validity of that statute upon the ground that it interfered with the free flow of commerce merce between the states. They alleged that the threatened action would deprive them of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, and asked that appellees be enjoined from proceeding therewith.

The District Court, three judges sitting, having heard the matter, concluded that the statute condemned gambling transactions only, did not affect interstate commerce, and that the proposed proceedings against appellants would not deprive them of any right. The request for preliminary injunction was accordingly refused, and this appeal followed. 3 F. (2d) 674.

The trial court discovered no necessity for the relief asked. The record discloses no adequate reason for a different conclusion here. There was no abuse of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
355 cases
  • NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 21 Enero 1958
    ...Co., 191 U.S. 492, 24 S.Ct. 164, 48 L.Ed. 274; Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 457, 39 S.Ct. 142, 63 L.Ed. 354; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 46 S. Ct. 492, 70 L.Ed. 927; Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 279 U.S. 159, 49 S.Ct. 282, 73 L.Ed. 652; Hawks v. Hamill, 288 U.S. 52......
  • Aristocrat Health Club of Hartford v. Chaucer, Civ. No. H-77-553.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 8 Mayo 1978
    ...pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions." 401 U.S. at 45, 91 S.Ct. at 751, citing Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 46 S.Ct. 492, 70 L.Ed. 927 (1926). Younger arose in connection with a state criminal prosecution, and it was recognized that courts of equity had tr......
  • Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. James
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • 26 Enero 1998
    ...of whether the plaintiffs have satisfied these conditions below. The attorney general defendants also point to Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 46 S.Ct. 492, 70 L.Ed. 927 (1926), upon which the Supreme Court placed heavy reliance in Younger, in support of their contention that this court sho......
  • Pulliam v. Allen, 82-1432
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1984
    ...and immediate.' " Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46, 91 S.Ct. 746, 751, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-244, 46 S.Ct. 492, 493, 70 L.Ed. 927 (1926). See discussion at n. 19, 18 Article III also imposes limitations on the availability of injunctive relief ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • THE STRANGE CAREER OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT: FEDERALISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS, 1954-1976.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 4, June 2022
    • 22 Junio 2022
    ...Younger-type abstention). (202.) See, e.g., three decisions cited and quoted in Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46 (first citing Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240 (1926), aff'g 3 F.2d 674 (N.D. Ga. 1925) (three-judge court); then citing Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935) (affirming ......
  • On the received wisdom in federal courts.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 147 No. 5, May 1999
    • 1 Mayo 1999
    ...by the state legislature should be regarded as an act of the state). The opinion in Younger could claim support from Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926), allowing federal courts to enjoin state officers from instituting criminal prosecutions only "where the danger of irreparable l......
  • An inapt fiction: the use of the Ex parte Young doctrine for environmental citizen suits against states after Seminole Tribe.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 27 No. 3, September - September 1997
    • 22 Septiembre 1997
    ...the company wrongfully withheld payment of a life insurance policy is consistent with due process and equal protection); Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243 (1926) (finding that federal courts have the power to enjoin state criminal proceedings only in extraordinary (116) 304 U.S. 209, 218-......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT