Hubbell v. Leonard
Decision Date | 05 January 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 2579.,2579. |
Parties | HUBBELL et al. v. LEONARD (MITCHELL et al., Interveners). |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
David M. Wood, of New York City, and Joseph G. Gamble, of Des Moines, Iowa (Thomson, Wood & Hoffman, of New York City, and Gamble, Read & Howland, of Des Moines, Iowa, on the brief), for complainants.
Charles T. Coleman, of Little Rock, Ark., and Walter L. Pope, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hal L. Norwood, Atty. Gen., and Walter G. Riddick, of Little Rock, Ark., on the brief), for defendant.
John C. Sheffield, of Helena, Ark., for interveners.
Before GARDNER, Circuit Judge, and MARTINEAU and RAGON, District Judges.
This is a suit in equity, brought by the plaintiffs, who are citizens of states other than Arkansas, and are not citizens of the state of Arkansas, against the defendant Roy V. Leonard, individually, and as treasurer of state of the state of Arkansas, to enjoin and restrain him from paying out certain funds of the state derived from taxation of motor vehicles and gasoline.
Plaintiffs constitute a committee, and under the terms of a written agreement dated June 1, 1933, are assignees of certain bonds and interest coupons issued by the state of Arkansas, and as such assignees are empowered to bring this suit. There is therefore a diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendant; the amount in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $3,000; and the suit, it is alleged by appropriate averments, arises under the Constitution of the United States.
The suit has been finally submitted on the pleadings and certain admitted facts.
There are two counts in the bill of complaint, each charging a violation of section 10, article 1, of the Constitution, providing that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, and of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The material facts in connection with count 1 are as follows: By Act of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, known in the record as Act No. 80 (page 215), approved March 4, 1927, which amended Act of the same legislature, known as Act No. 11 (pages 17, 20), approved February 4, 1927, it was, among other things, provided as follows:
By Act No. 6 of the General Assembly, approved October 3, 1928, it was provided that, in addition to the provisions contained in the above-quoted act, the state highway commission might sell short-term notes maturing within a year, the issuance of which, however, was not to affect the power to issue state highway notes pursuant to the terms of the statute, but the proceeds of the sale thereof were to be used to pay any outstanding short-term notes and interest. This statute further provided that not more than $18,000,000 par value of notes should be sold in any calendar year beginning with the year 1928, and, if in any year the sale of notes should be deemed inadvisable, sufficient in amount might be sold in subsequent years to bring the average up to $18,000,000 a year.
By Act No. 65 (page 264), approved February 28, 1929, the General Assembly again in substance re-enacted the provisions of the foregoing statutes.
Pursuant to the authority contained in these various acts, the state from time to time issued certain highway obligations amounting in the aggregate to the par value of $84,000,000, bearing interest at the rate of 4½ per cent. per annum, payable semiannually.
Plaintiffs are the owners and holders of the legal title to a large quantity of each of these issues of bonds under these various statutes, aggregating $41,833,000, and on all of which one semiannual installment of interest falling due in 1933 is past due and unpaid.
In each of these obligations, it is, among other things, provided:
By sections 35 and 36 of Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dodds v. Kansas City
... ... Kansas City, 339 ... Mo. 344, 144 S.W.2d 137; Worthen Co. v. Kavanaugh, ... 295 U.S. 56, 55 S.Ct. 555; Hubell v. Leonard, 6 ... F.Supp. 145; Coombes v. Getz, 285 U.S. 434, 52 S.Ct ... 435. (2) The covenants and agreements contained in Ordinance ... No. 6349 will ... ...
-
Matthews v. Bailey, Governor
... ... revenues. The holders of these bonds will have vested rights, ... as was said in the case of Hubbell v ... Leonard, 6 F.Supp. 145, cited in appellant's ... brief, but they do not receive those vested rights upon the ... passage and approval of ... ...
-
Sovereign Camp, WOW v. Gillespie
...275 F. 747; Moore v. Gas Securities Co. (C.C.A.8) 278 F. 111; Rorick v. Board of Commissioners (D.C.) 57 F.(2d) 1048, 1055; Hubbell v. Leonard (D.C.) 6 F.Supp. 145; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Franklin-American Trust Co. (C.C.A.8) 52 F.(2d) 431, 87 A.L.R. The holders of the later bond issu......
-
Matthews v. Bailey
...will be secured by a pledge of revenues. The holders of these bonds will have vested rights, as was said in the case of Hubbell v. Leonard, D.C., 6 F.Supp. 145, cited in appellant's brief, but they do not receive those vested rights upon the passage and approval of this Act, because the Act......