Bender v. Connor
Decision Date | 11 August 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 141.,141. |
Citation | 28 F. Supp. 903 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | BENDER et al. v. CONNOR, Com'r of Motor Vehicles. |
Woodruff & Klein, of New Haven, Conn. (Robert J. Woodruff and Arthur Klein, both of New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Frank J. DiSesa, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis A. Pallotti, Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before CLARK, Circuit Judge, and GODDARD and HINCKS, District Judges.
This is an action to enjoin the Motor Vehicle Commissioner of the State of Connecticut from enforcing against plaintiffs, dealers in used motor vehicles, the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, approved by the Governor on June 20, 1939, entitled "An Act Concerning Registration of Used Motor Vehicles," and known as Senate Bill No. 1023, Chapter 329 of the Public Acts of Connecticut 1939, on the ground that the provisions thereof violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, art. 1, § 8, Cl. 3, U.S.C.A., and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment thereto. A statutory court of three judges was constituted pursuant to section 266 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380, to pass upon the application for an interlocutory injunction. Upon the hearing, evidence was taken, and by stipulation of the parties the case was submitted for final decree upon the pleadings and the evidence.
The pleadings herein consist of the plaintiffs' complaint and an amendment thereto allowed at the hearing, the defendant's answer, the plaintiffs' reply, and the defendant's rejoinder. Though under Rule 7(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the reply and the rejoinder are improper, they contain only limited allegations of fact agreed to by the parties and brought out in evidence, and may be treated as superfluous without formal action.
The following is the text of the statute in question: "
The statute to which this act is an addition, section 545c of the 1935 Supplement to the General Statutes, in force since July 1, 1935, re-enacted earlier general provisions requiring registration of motor vehicles with the Commissioner before their operation upon Connecticut highways, and contained also this provision: The plaintiffs have not objected to the safety inspection, and the fee therefor, required by the 1935 act, but direct their attack solely against the new statute because of its threat of material damage to their respective businesses through the substantial fee to be exacted.
Before a court of the United States can interfere at all with state governmental processes, its jurisdiction must be made to appear. Although here the complaint contains no allegation of jurisdiction, as required by Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and although the defendant did not raise the issue of or urge the lack of jurisdiction, we must consider it of our own accord. Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583, 59 S.Ct. 744, 83 L.Ed. 1001. Our general jurisdiction is based on section 24(1) of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1), giving jurisdiction to the district courts of the United States "of all suits of a civil nature * * * where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000, and (a) arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States * * *."
So far as concerns the requirement that the matter in controversy must arise under the United States Constitution, we think that a substantial, even grave, constitutional issue is presented herein. In Park McLain, Inc., v. Hoey, D.C.E.D.N.C., 19 F. Supp. 990, a three-judge court in 1937 held unconstitutional a statute of North Carolina which was similar to this and even contained certain identical language, in requiring a fee of $10 for registration of a used motor vehicle brought into the state for sale, but which also contained an additional requirement from the dealer of a bond not exceeding $1,000, conditioned upon the payment of all losses that might be occasioned by reason of failure of title, or fraudulent representations or breaches of warranty as to freedom from liens, quality, condition, or use, of the motor vehicle. The opinion by Circuit Judge Parker holds both the bond and the fee provisions to be discriminatory against, and improper burdens upon, interstate commerce. And in Ingels v. Morf, 300 U.S. 290, 57 S.Ct. 439, 81 L.Ed. 653, affirming D.C.S.D.Cal., 14 F.Supp. 922, the Supreme Court in the same year held unconstitutional the California Caravan Act, St.Cal.1935, p. 1453, which prohibited "caravaning," i. e., the transportation into the state for the purpose of sale "of any motor vehicle operated on its own wheels, or in tow of another motor vehicle" without a special permit, for which a fee of $15 was exacted. The Court held that the charge bore no reasonable relation to the expense to the state of providing facilities or enforcing the regulation and that it was excessive, and hence that it imposed an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce, of the nature, as the court below stated, of a protective tariff by the state against the motor vehicles in question.
Nevertheless in Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., supra, decided April 17, 1939 , the Supreme Court upheld a second...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spector Motor Service v. Walsh
...of the states." Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 298, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 1073, 87 L.Ed. 1407; cf. also Bender v. Connor, D.C.Conn., 28 F.Supp. 903. Following this clear mandate, we have considered the matter at length and conclude that jurisdiction is to be upheld on eith......
-
Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. Munch
...of its own motion if it is not otherwise presented. Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583, 59 S.Ct. 744, 83 L.Ed. 1001; Bender v. Connor, D.C.Conn., 28 F.Supp. 903; Federal Rule If the interests of defendants are considered separately, jurisdiction here is lacking, since, as the record sho......
-
Reese v. Holm
...1001. Applying this rule, we find the bill of complaint far short in showing the requisite amount for jurisdiction. In Bender v. Connor, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 903, 906, a statutory court, in considering its jurisdiction of a suit attacking a statute of Connecticut, the context of which is substa......
- United States v. Tot