F. W. Cook Brewing Co. v. Garber

• Decision Date: 13 January 1909
• Citation: 168 F. 942
• Parties: F. W. COOK BREWING CO. v. GARBER et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

168 F. 942

F. W. COOK BREWING CO. v. GARBER et al.

United States Circuit Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

January 13, 1909

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Troy Watts & Letcher, for complainant.

Alex. M. Garber, Atty. Gen., Thos. W. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen Philip H. Stern, and Armstead Brown, for defendants.

JONES District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The proposition upon which the complainant really rests the equity of its bill is that the act approved November 27, 1907, 'to prohibit the manufacture, sale, barter, exchange, giving away to induce trade, and furnishing at public places or otherwise disposing of alcoholic, spirituous, vinous or malt liquors or other liquors or beverages by whatsoever name called, which, if drunk to excess will produce intoxication, except the sale of alcohol in certain cases upon certain conditions, and except the sale of wine for sacramental purposes,' is not a valid law of this state, because there was such transgression in its enactment against mandatory requirements of the Constitution as to amending and passing bills that the act in question never had the force of law. The right and power of the state to pass such a law, the Constitution being conformed to in its enactment, is not and cannot be denied.

Respondents strenuously insist that the act is constitutional. Conceding for the sake of argument that the enactment is invalid, they insist that the complainant is in no position to challenge its constitutionality, since there are other laws and certain sections of the state Constitution which require the complainant to perform certain conditions precedent before it is entitled to protection as to any business done in this state, other than interstate commerce transactions, and that the bill does not show that complainant had complied with those laws. They also insist that this court cannot entertain this bill, because it shows no invasion of any rights secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and hinges its sole title to relief upon the allegations that the prohibition statute, which if valid puts an end to complainant's case, was not passed in conformity to the Constitution of the state of Alabama, which presents a question, the decision of which it is insisted lies so peculiarly within the province of the state court that the federal court ought not to entertain the bill, but should remit the complainant to the state forum, where alone the question can be finally determined. They further insist that the court has a discretion, in view of the nature of the property right asserted and the public concern in its exercise, to consider the harm which may result to the public from granting the preliminary injunction, as well as that which may result to complainant from refusing it, and on high grounds of public policy should withhold a preliminary injunction until the question of complainant's right to do other than interstate commerce in this state is tested by mandamus in the state courts, to compel the issue of a license to it or to the wholesalers and retailers of its beer in this state, which respondents insist, under the circumstances of this case, is an adequate and the only remedy.

Complainant, on the other hand, as strenuously insists, for reasons ably detailed, that the prohibition statute is invalid, and the complainant having built up a reputation and good will for its business and products, in which it has expended large sums of money, and being prepared to make large sales to wholesalers and retailers, who, but for the threats to prosecute them under the invalid enactment, would buy largely of complainant's product as they did in the past, the good will of the business is being destroyed, and it is prevented from making large profits which it otherwise would make, and that defendants are unable personally to respond for the amount of damages inflicted, whereby complainant is daily compelled to suffer irreparable injury, for the redress of which it has no adequate remedy at law. It also insists that the court not only has jurisdiction, but it is under duty now to determine the questions raised, and that since nothing but a pure question of law is involved, which cannot be varied on the final hearing, this court is bound to act now on its own judgment as to the constitutionality of the prohibition law, and, if it be of opinion that it is invalid, must ex debito justitiae grant the relief here prayed, upon the same principles which governed the court's action in the railroad rate cases here, and the action of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 Sup.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932.

Under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Circuit Courts of the United States have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature at common law and in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000, in which there is a controversy between citizens of different states. A citizen of Indiana may therefore, other conditions permitting, litigate with citizens of Alabama in a federal court here any question which he might litigate if he were the plaintiff in a state court . The Constitution and laws giving a citizen of another state the right to resort to the federal court here to settle a dispute with a citizen of this state, the court has no power to cast such a suitor out of its portals merely because he seeks to litigate in the federal court a right dependent solely upon the construction or validity of the statutes of this state.

It must not be forgotten that the Circuit Courts of the United States in the exercise of such concurrent jurisdiction are, for all practical purposes, courts of the states in which they sit, and their function, under such circumstances, is to enforce the rights of the parties according to the laws of the state, just as the courts of the state in exercising jurisdiction concurrent with the Circuit Courts of the United States, in certain cases under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, must enforce the rights of the parties under the laws of the United States. In this way the state and federal courts. reciprocally support the authority of the state and federal governments, and for these purposes these courts constitute one judicial system. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257.

The exercise of jurisdiction by the state and federal courts, in this class of cases, has always been governed by considerations of comity and the desire upon the part of each to avoid trenching upon the province of the other. When, however, it is essential to the ends of justice, and the necessities of the particular case require it, a federal court may, and frequently must, pass upon the constitutionality of a state statute in advance of the courts of the state, although the sole issue be whether the Legislature of the state in the passage of the statute has conformed to the mode required by the state Constitution for the passage of laws. The spirit in which the federal courts should deal with such matters has been amplified in many decisions of the federal courts. The writ of habeas corpus is one of the most sacred writs in our jurisprudence. Federal courts and judges have authority, and are under duty, to grant writs of habeas corpus whenever persons are deprived of liberty in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States; yet so great is the solicitude of the courts of the United States not to interfere in advance in matters of this kind, where the execution of the laws of a state is concerned, that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the federal courts should refuse to issue the writ in such cases, and put the parties to their remedy by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the highest court of the state, except in extreme cases, where the operations of the government might be impeded, or persons are imprisoned by state authority for obedience to the laws or orders of the courts of the United States and the like.

The general duty of the federal courts in such cases is laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Felton v. Bank of the United States, 101 U.S. 143, 25 L.Ed. 901, where it is stated:

'It is an appropriate duty which this court is called upon to perform very often to protect rights founded upon the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, when those rights are invaded by state authority; but it is a very different thing for this court to declare that an act of the state Legislature passed in the usual forms necessary to its validity is void, because that Legislature has violated the Constitution of the state. It has long been recognized by this court that the highest court of the state is the one to which such questions properly belong, and though the courts of the United States in exercising concurrent jurisdiction must decide for themselves, though the question has not been previously considered by the state court, it would be indelicate to make such decisions in advance of the state courts unless the case imperatively demanded it.'

In Michigan Central Railway Co. v. Powers, 201 U.S. 291, 26 Sup.Ct. 461, 50 L.Ed. 744, it is said:

'Undoubtedly the federal court has the jurisdiction, and when the question is properly presented, it may often become its duty to pass upon an alleged conflict between a statute and the state Constitution, even before the question has been considered by the state tribunals. At the same time the court will be reluctant to do so. * * * And this reluctance becomes more imperative where the statute has been before the highest

...