Baker Driveaway Co. v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 16 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 208.,208. |
| Citation | 29 F. Supp. 693 |
| Parties | BAKER DRIVEAWAY CO., Inc., et al. v. HAMILTON, Secretary of Revenue of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Matheson, Dixon & Brady, of Detroit, Mich., and McNees, Hollinger & Nurick, of Harrisburg, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Claude T. Reno, Atty. Gen., of Pennsylvania, and George W. Keitel, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Pennsylvania, for defendants.
Before BIDDLE, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON and WATSON, District Judges.
This is an application for an interlocutory injunction to enjoin the defendants from enforcing Section 1033(c) of the Act of the Pennsylvania Legislature of 1937, P.L. 2329, as amended June 27, 1939, Act No. 400, 75 P.S. § 642(c), on the ground that this legislation violates the Constitution of the United States. The acts in question prohibit the operation on the highways of Pennsylvania of vehicles carrying an automobile over the cab of the carrier vehicle.
The plaintiffs allege that they operate 756 vehicles of the prohibited type, valued at $1,066,235.90, and that this operation is entirely interstate. It is further alleged that the enforcement of the act will violate the Federal Constitution by depriving plaintiffs of their property without due process of law, that the act is not a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and that the state has no jurisdiction to legislate on the interstate phase of the subject covered by the act because the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 301-327, and action taken thereunder by the Interstate Commerce Commission have superseded any state authority on this subject. They further allege that the act places unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce, that it impairs the obligations of contracts between the plaintiffs and the state, and that its provisions constitute an illegal classification.
The application was heard by a three judge court on July 28, 1939, in accordance with Section 266 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380. At this hearing, the defendants moved to dismiss the application for injunction and the complaint, and this motion was granted by a unanimous court. The reasons for the court's action follow.
Judicial notice is taken of the fact that on July 3, 1939, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Barnes, Maurer v. Boardman, 7 A.2d 466, upheld the constitutionality of the legislation in question. The same issues were raised in the state court, and substantially the same parties were involved, as in the present action. Thus, all of the questions raised by the complaint in the present case have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, and consequently this court will not intervene, the matter being res adjudicata.
The plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Virginia Motor Truck Ass'n v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...D.C., 91 F.Supp. 668; Consolidated Freightways v. Railroad Commission of California, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 269; Baker Driveaway Co. v. Hamilton, D.C., 29 F. Supp. 693; Rosen v. Lutz, D.C., 7 F. Supp. We think we are on safer and firmer ground when we dismiss the instant civil action on the merit......
-
Monongahela Connecting R. Co. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUB. U. COM'N
...of federal law is through the appellate route leading to the Supreme Court of the United States. Baker Driveaway Co., Inc. v. Hamilton, 29 F. Supp. 693, 694 (M.D.Pa.1939); Cunningham v. Aberman, 252 F.Supp. 602, Western District of Pennsylvania, opinion by Judge Sorg, dated March 25, 1965; ......
-
Camacho v. Rogers
...362; New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 2 Cir., 1939, 102 F.2d 453; Baker Drive-away Co. v. Hamilton, D.C.M.D.Pa.1939, 29 F.Supp. 693; England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, D.C. E.D.La.1961, 194 F.Supp. If there are any rights avai......
-
Consolidated Freightways v. Railroad Commission
...Betts v. Railroad Commission, D.C.1933, 6 F.Supp. 591, affirmed, 1934, 291 U.S. 652, 54 S.Ct. 563, 79 L.Ed. 1046; Baker Driveaway Co. v. Hamilton, D.C.1939, 29 F.Supp. 693. Since there has been no waiver at this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff's second defense is without Finally, plaint......