272 U.S. 317 (1926), 185, Moore v. Fidelity & Deposit Company

Docket Nº:No. 185
Citation:272 U.S. 317, 47 S.Ct. 105, 71 L.Ed. 273
Party Name:Moore v. Fidelity & Deposit Company
Case Date:November 01, 1926
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 317

272 U.S. 317 (1926)

47 S.Ct. 105, 71 L.Ed. 273



Fidelity & Deposit Company

No. 185

United States Supreme Court

Nov. 1, 1926

        Argued October 12, 1926




        1. Under Jud.Code § 238, as amended by Act of Feb. 13, 1925, a decree of the district court is not appealable directly to this Court on constitutional grounds alone, but only in cases falling within the acts or parts of acts enumerated in that section as amended. P. 319.

        2. Section 266, which is enumerated in and amended by § 238, authorizes a direct appeal to this Court from the final decree of the district court granting a permanent injunction in a suit to

Page 318

restrain enforcement of an order of a state administrative board upon the ground of unconstitutionality only where the case was, and was required to be, heard before three judges because the application for a preliminary injunction was pressed. P. 320.

        Appeal from 3 F.2d 652 dismissed.

        Appeal from a final decree of the district court (one judge sitting) granting a permanent injunction in a suit by indemnity insurance companies to enjoin a state insurance commissioner from carrying out a threat to annul their licenses for failure to obey an order cancelling their authority to issue a certain kind of policy. The prayer for a preliminary injunction was not pressed.

        BRANDEIS, J., lead opinion

        MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

        Three companies licensed to do business in Oregon brought this suit against its insurance commissioner in the federal court for that state. The bill alleges that a former commissioner had authorized these companies to issue indemnity bonds, commonly called "confiscation coverage," by which those who sell automobiles on conditional sale are insured against loss arising from their confiscation for violation of law; that the defendant has entered an order cancelling this authorization on the ground that insurance of this nature is void as against public policy because it serves to encourage the transportation of intoxicating liquors in violation of law, and that he has threatened to annul the plaintiffs' licenses unless they refrain entirely from writing such indemnity

Page 319

bonds. The bill charges that the defendant's action is in excess of the...

To continue reading