McNeely v. MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF TOWN OF VIDALIA, 211.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1924
• Docket Number: No. 211.,211.
• Citation: 6 F.2d 19
• Parties: McNEELY v. MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF TOWN OF VIDALIA.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

6 F.2d 19 (1924)

McNEELY v. MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF TOWN OF VIDALIA.

No. 211.

District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Monroe Division.

December 5, 1924.

L. T. Kennedy, of Natchez, Miss., and Hugh Tullis, of Vidalia, La., for plaintiff.

G. P. Bullis, of Vidalia, and J. B. Brunini, of Vicksburg, Miss., for defendants.

DAWKINS, District Judge.

The complainant has applied for a writ of injunction to prevent the town of Vidalia, La., from interfering with his operation of the public ferry from that town across the Mississippi river to the city of Natchez, Miss. The grounds of complaint are, in substance, as follows:

First, that the said municipalities have conspired to prevent him from conducting said ferry, and have passed ordinances requiring that their consent first be obtained for that purpose.

Second, that the town of Vidalia granted to the city of Natchez a franchise from the Louisiana shore which the latter, in turn, had assigned, together with one granted by it from the Mississippi side, to the Royal Route Company, Limited, thereby attempting to give to said private corporation an exclusive right to operate a ferry at that point, and penalizing any one else who might so do without their consent, "with the distinct and avowed purpose of preventing complainant from engaging in said business."

Third, that the town of Vidalia had subsequently, on October 21, 1924, passed another ordinance requiring the removal of complainant's docks, boats, etc., from the landing heretofore used by him, and notified complainant that unless he complied therewith, he would be subjected to criminal prosecution. And

Fourth, that the acts of said municipality were void and without effect as an unwarranted attempt to interfere with interstate commerce.

The prayer was that the town be enjoined "from interfering in any manner whatsoever with your complainant in the conducting of his ferry business, and especially with the use of the various landings designated and referred to in the said ordinance of the town of Vidalia passed October 21, 1924," and pending hearing that a restraining order issue.

Thereupon the restraining order was issued pending hearing upon the application for a preliminary injunction.

The town of Vidalia and its officers alone were made parties defendant.

The matter came on for hearing at Monroe, La., on November 1st. Defendant admitted plaintiff had been operating the ferry, but averred that the same was at all times under its jurisdiction; that the boats and equipment were totally inadequate to meet the requirements of the public; and that the charges of the complainant were unjust and exorbitant, his manner and method of operating it wholly insufficient; and complainant having refused to meet the necessities of the situation when requested, it had acted in the interest of the public, as it had a right to do.

Defendant further admitted the execution of the contract or franchise dated September 2, 1902, alleged upon by complainant, but denied that it had the power to grant an exclusive one and, in addition, pleaded that the same had been rendered "null and void" by the failure of complainant to pay the yearly consideration therefor of $1,000 for the years 1923 and 1924. Other matters of litigation in the state...