Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Co.
Decision Date | 19 February 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 232.,232. |
Citation | 31 F. Supp. 663 |
Parties | CAMPBELL v. SUPERIOR DECALCOMINIA CO., Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
R. H. Jones, Jr., and J. C. Muse, Jr., both of Dallas, Tex., for the motion.
Curtis E. Hill, of Dallas, Tex., opposed.
The plaintiff sues for an amount under the National Fair Labor Standard Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219, which is less than $3,000. The defendant claims that this court is without jurisdiction to proceed.
The judicial code specifies the jurisdiction of this court to be over "all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity * * * 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 * * *." But the foregoing immediate provision as to the sum, or, value of the matter in controversy shall not be construed, says the code, to apply to any of the cases mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs of subdivision 1 of Section 24, 28 U. S.C.A. § 41(1).
Subdivision 8 of that same section, confers jurisdiction upon district courts "of all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating interstate commerce."
That this provision confers jurisdiction, regardless of the amount involved, has been repeatedly determined, and was recently held in Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 651, 83 L.Ed. 1092. It will be recalled that the Mulford case arose under the AAA Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq., and dealt with the provisions for tobacco marketing. The court said: See, also, Puerto Rico v. Russell & Company, 288 U.S. 476, 53 S.Ct. 447, 77 L.Ed. 903; Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70; Young & Jones v. Hiawatha Gin & Mfg. Co., D.C., 17 F.2d 193.
The Act under consideration, was passed in 1938, and provides in Section 2 (b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 202(b): "It is hereby declared to be the policy of this Act chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Booth v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...6 Cir., 121 F.2d 285, reversing D.C., 32 F.Supp. 19, certiorari denied Nov. 10, 1941, 62 S.Ct. 181, 86 L.Ed. ___; Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 663; Fishman v. Marcouse, D. C., 32 F.Supp. 460; Lengel v. Newark Newsdealers Supply Company, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 567; Roger......
-
Whatley v. Love
... ... 603, 178 A.659; 15 C.J. 1159 Note ... 30, 21 C.J.S., Courts, � 526; Campbell v. Superior ... Decalcominia Co., Inc., D.C.Tex., 31 F.Supp. 663; Robertson ... v. Argus Hosiery ... ...
-
Harrison v. Herzig Bldg. & Supply Co.
... ... It is open to the ... thought that having exercised its superior right to occupy ... that field of legislation and to use that vehicle to achieve ... its end, ... D.C., 36 F.Supp. 233; Stewart v. Hickman, D.C., ... 36 F.Supp. 861; Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia ... Company, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 663 ... We are ... of ... ...
-
Sonnesyn v. Federal Cartridge Co., Civil Action No. 1036.
...that there exists no diversity of citizenship. See Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, 6 Cir., 121 F.2d 285; Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Co., Inc., D.C.N.D. Texas, 31 F. Supp. 663; Townsend et al. v. Boston & M. R. R. (Townsend v. Palmer et al.), D.C.D. Mass., 35 F.Supp. 938; Martin v. ......