Murray v. Transit Commission

• Decision Date: 04 June 1935
• Citation: 11 F. Supp. 27
• Parties: MURRAY v. TRANSIT COMMISSION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

11 F. Supp. 27

MURRAY v. TRANSIT COMMISSION.

District Court, S. D. New York.

June 4, 1935.

Miller, Boston & Owen, of New York City (Carl M. Owen and Mark F. Hughes, both of New York City, of counsel), for receiver.

John J. Curtin, of New York City (John J. Curtin and Winfield S. Palmer, both of New York City, of counsel), Sp. Counsel for Transit Commission.

MACK, Circuit Judge.

In addition to the suit which the Transit Commission has brought in the New York Supreme Court in the name and on behalf of the city of New York, the further prosecution of which has this day been enjoined, American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 11 F. Supp. 26, the Commission has brought a statutory proceeding in the state court in its own name against the Interborough Company and its receiver, pursuant to section 57 of the New York Public Service Law (Consol. Laws N. Y. c. 48), for a mandamus commanding the defendants therein to perform the obligations of the company under contract 3 and related certificates, as set forth in the petition, or for an injunction restraining them from doing anything which would constitute a violation of those obligations. The Interborough receiver thereupon filed a dependent bill in the receivership proceedings to enjoin the commission from prosecuting the special proceeding. He now asks for an injunction pendente lite; the Transit Commission moves to dismiss the dependent bill and to quash and set aside the service of the subpœna.

In substance, the special proceeding seeks determination of the same issues that are involved in the suit brought by the commission in the name of the city of New York. But in it, the commission sues not as agent and on behalf of the city, but in its capacity as a state regulatory body. In that capacity it is made a defendant to the dependent bill, and thus by its motions there is presented the question of whether or not the dependent suit is an action against the state within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment.

It is well settled that a suit to enjoin proceedings by a state agency, charged with the administration of a state statute, is not necessarily one against the state. Looney v. Eastern Texas Ry. Co., 247 U. S. 214, 38 S. Ct. 460, 62 L. Ed. 1084 (1918); Mississippi R. Comm. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 203 U. S. 335, 27 S. Ct. 90, 51 L. Ed. 209 (1906). The prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment is applicable only if the state is the real party in interest, as when it is pecuniarily directly affected. In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 8 S. Ct. 164, 31 L. Ed. 216 (1887), and McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662, 10 S. Ct. 972, 34 L. Ed. 304 (1890), suits to force the state to accept coupons attached to state bonds in payment of taxes, are typical examples. So, too, Ex parte State of New York, 256 U. S. 490, 41 S. Ct. 588, 65 L. Ed. 1057 (1921), in which a writ of prohibition was granted against further prosecution in the federal courts of a suit against the New York superintendent of public works, on the ground that the ultimate incidence of the relief sought would fall upon the state. Similarly, a suit will not lie in the federal courts to force a state to raise taxes State of North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22, 10 S. Ct. 509, 33 L. Ed. 849 (1890); State of Louisiana v. Steele, 134 U. S. 230, 10 S. Ct. 511, 33 L. Ed. 891 (1890), or to enjoin the state from bringing an action for the collection of taxes Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18, 54 S. Ct. 18, 78 L. Ed. 145 (1933). The state is likewise the real party in interest when the effect of the suit is to compel it to continue the performance of its contracts cf. Wells v. Roper, 246 U. S. 335, 38 S. Ct. 317, 62 L. Ed. 755 (1918); Transcontinental & Western Air v. Farley, 71 F.(2d) 288 (C. C. A. 2d, 1933), or when the suit affects the ownership or administration of state property Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 3 S. Ct. 292, 609, 27 L. Ed. 992 (1883); cf. Morrison v. Work, 266 U. S. 481, 45 S. Ct. 149, 69 L. Ed. 394 (1925). In criminal proceedings, too, that are already pending in the state court under a concededly valid statute, the state, as an organized political community, is the real party in interest and the federal courts cannot, therefore, enjoin the state prosecuting officials from continuing the proceedings. Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 19 S. Ct. 119, 43 L. Ed. 399 (1898). But see as to limitations, Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 159 et seq., 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764.

But the present case presents a different situation. The state as such has no real interest in the controversy; it does not affect state revenues, state property, state contracts, or any activity by the state as a political entity. Those primarily interested in the litigation are the city, the Interborough Company, the Manhattan Company, and the public which uses their lines. In a sense, the state, through the Transit Commission, represents that public; but it is well settled that such a general governmental interest does not make the state a party in interest to the litigation. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Missouri R. R. & Warehouse Com'rs, 183 U. S. 53, 22 S. Ct. 18, 21, 46 L. Ed. 78 (1901). The Missouri board of railroad commissioners had ordered the defendant railroad company to discontinue certain allegedly excessive charges. The company failed to comply with the order; the commissioners brought a statutory proceeding in the state court, somewhat similar to the proceedings authorized by section 57 of the New...