Kennington v. Palmer

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHITE
• Citation: Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U.S. 100, 41 S.Ct. 303, 65 L.Ed. 528 (1921)
• Decision Date: 28 February 1921
• Docket Number: No. 367,367
• Parties: KENNINGTON et al. v. PALMER, Atty. Gen., et al

255 U.S. 100

41 S.Ct. 303

65 L.Ed. 528

KENNINGTON et al.

v. PALMER, Atty. Gen., et al.

No. 367.

Argued Oct. 18, 19, and 20, 1920.

Decided Feb. 28, 1921.

Messrs. Garner Wynn Green and Marcellus Green, both of Jackson, Miss., for appellants.

The Attorney General, for respondents.

Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellants, dealers in wearing apparel in the city of Jackson, Miss., filed their bill in the court below aginst the Attorney General and subordinates, charged by him with administrative duties under section 4 of the Lever Act (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8ff), as re-enacted by Act Oct. 22, 1919, tit. 1, § 2 (41 Stat. 298), to enjoin the enforcement against them of provisions of that section. Their right to relief was based upon averments as to the unconstitutionality of the assailed provisions of the section, not only in substance upon the contentions which we have this day considered and disposed of in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, 255 U. S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct. 298, 65 L. Ed. ——, but upon other grounds as well.

Without passing upon the question of constitutionality, the court dismissed the bill for the reason that the complainants had an adequate remedy at law, and the correctness of the decree of dismissal is the question now before us on direct appeal.

As it is no longer open to deny that the averments of unconstitutionality which were relied upon, if well founded, justified equitable relief under the bill,¹ and because the opinion in the Cohen Case has conclusively settled that they were well founded, it follows that the court below was wrong, and its decree must be and it is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice PITNEY and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS concur in the result.

Mr. Justice DAY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

1 Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 37 Sup. Ct. 298, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917E, 938, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 37 Sup. Ct. 662, 61 L. Ed. 1336, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 38 Sup. Ct. 529, 62 L. Ed. 1101, 3 A. L. R. 649 Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 40 Sup. Ct. 106, 64 L. Ed. 194; Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 40 Sup. Ct. 141, 64 L. Ed. 260; Ft. Smith & Western R. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206, 40 Sup. Ct. 526, 64 L. Ed. 862.