Board of Flour Inspectors For Port of New Orleans v. Glover
| Decision Date | 02 March 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 88,88 |
| Citation | 161 U.S. 101,16 S.Ct. 492,40 L.Ed. 632 |
| Parties | BOARD OF FLOUR INSPECTORS FOR PORT OF NEW ORLEANS et al. v. GLOVER et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. R. Beckwith, for appellants.
W. W. Howe, for appellees.
This was a bill filed by complainants June 19, 1891, in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Louisiana, against the board of flour inspectors for the port of New Orleans, and the individual members thereof, to enjoin the enforcement of a certain act of 1870 of the general assembly of Louisiana. The ground of equity interposition set up was want of adequate remedy at law, as indicated by the following averments: 'Your orators show that they respectively each receive their large consignments of flour from other states of the Union almost daily, and, as each lot arrives at the port of New Orleans, the defendants claim and insist on the right and power to inspect the same on its arrival, and to make such inspections compulsory, and claim and demand their fees of two cents a barrel therefor on every barrel arriving, and, if such fees are not paid, the defendant board will bring a great multitude of suits and prosecutions under said statute to enforce its illegal claims; that, as to each of your orators, such suits will be each of small amounts, in inferior courts, and will be of great number, each arising out of almost daily inspections, and involving large, constant, and daily expenses, many counsel fees, and much loss of time, vexation, annoyance, and irreparable injury; that there is no practicable method under the said act of 1870 or any other law of Louisiana of paying said fees to said board under protest, and recovering the same; that such a course would involve for each of your orators a multiplicity of controversies and suits, and great expense, loss of time, and vexation, and, if each of your orators should recover judgments from time to time against the board for the return of such fees as unduly paid, they could have no judgments for their counsel fees, nor has the defendant board any fund or property whatever to respond to the same, nor is there any appropriation or provision of law to pay the same, and the collection of such judgments or any of them would be utterly impossible.'
The court granted a preliminary injunction, on condition of bond being given for $10,000, enjoining defendants from enforcing the act of 1870 by 'demanding any inspection of flour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finberg v. Sullivan
...actions, see Lord v. Veazie, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 251, 12 L.Ed. 1067 (1850), or injunctions, see New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 161 U.S. 101, 16 S.Ct. 492, 40 L.Ed. 632 (1896). The turning point in the Supreme Court practice is generally taken to be Board of Pub. Util. Comm'rs v. Compa......
-
United States v. Munsingwear
...cause of action.' 2 This has become the standard disposition in federal civil cases: Board of Flour Inspectors for Port of New Orleans v. Glover, 161 U.S. 101, 103, 16 S.Ct. 492, 40 L.Ed. 632, modifying 160 U.S. 170, 16 S.Ct. 321, 40 L.Ed. 382; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packet-......
-
Acheson v. Droesse
...the Supreme Court, the Court said: "This has become the standard disposition in federal civil cases: New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 161 U.S. 101, 103 16 S.Ct. 492, 40 L.Ed. 632, modifying 160 U.S. 170 16 S.Ct. 321, 40 L.Ed. 382; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U.S. 466 3......
-
Board of Public Utility Com Rs v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas
...1 Cranch, 103, 2 L. Ed. 49; New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U. S. 170, 16 Sup. Ct. 321, 40 L. Ed. 382, and 161 U. S. 101, 16 Sup. Ct. 492, 40 L. Ed. 632; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115, 22 Sup. Ct. 45, 46 L. Ed. 111; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packet......