Park McLain, Inc. v. Hoey
Decision Date | 19 July 1937 |
Citation | 19 F. Supp. 990 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
Parties | PARK McLAIN, Inc., et al. v. HOEY, Governor of North Carolina, et al. |
Thomas Turner, Jr., of High Point, N. C., and F. A. McCleneghan, of Charlotte, N. C., for complainants.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, Harry McMullan and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Attys. Gen., of North Carolina, Walter D. Siler and Daniel L. Bell, both of Pittsboro, N.C., and W. B. Rodman, Jr., of Washington, N. C., for defendants.
Before PARKER, Circuit Judge, and MEEKINS and HAYES, District Judges.
This is a suit to enjoin the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of North Carolina from enforcing against complainants certain provisions of an act of the General Assembly of North Carolina, ratified February 24, 1937,1 entitled "An Act to Regulate the Business of Selling Used Motor Vehicles Brought into the State of North Carolina from Other States," on the ground that the provisions are violative of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution (article 1, § 8, cl. 3) and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment thereto. The complainants are either citizens and residents of the State of North Carolina or corporations created and existing under the laws of that state, and all have fixed and established places of business within the state and are engaged in the sale of used motor vehicles brought into North Carolina from without the state. It is admitted that as to each of them the suit involves exceeding $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs. As interlocutory injunction was originally asked, a court of three judges was constituted pursuant to section 266 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380, to pass upon the application for same; but, upon the hearing, the case was submitted for final decree upon the pleadings and affidavits filed.
The pertinent sections of the statute in question are sections 1 and 3, which are as follows:
Complaint is made of the provision of the statute requiring bond as a condition of offering for sale any used car brought from without the state and of the requirement that a fee of $10 be paid for each bond so filed. No question is raised as to the validity of the provision requiring registration with the Commissioner of Revenue, nor as to another provision, not quoted, requiring that certificate of title issued by the Commissioner of Revenue be delivered to the purchaser upon sale of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mueller v. Comm'r of Pub. Health
...Flynt, 256 U.S. 421, 41 S.Ct. 571, 65 L.Ed. 1029;Hale v. Bimco Trading, Inc., 306 U.S. 375, 59 S.Ct. 526, 83 L.Ed. 771;Park McLain, Inc. v. Hoey, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 990. The statute in question prohibits generally the sale of bedding or upholstered furniture manufactured without the Commonwea......
-
Reese v. Holm
...jurisdiction when the plaintiff failed to make it appear that the requisite amount was involved. Plaintiff cites McLain, Inc., et al. v. Hoey, etc., D.C., 19 F.Supp. 990, wherein a statutory court declared invalid an act of the State of North Carolina, treating of the same subject matter as......
-
State v. Ed Ernst.
... ... between the states. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, ... Inc.294 U.S. 511, 527, 55 S.Ct. 497, 502, 79 L.Ed. 1032, ... 101 A.L.R. 55 ... Asher v. Ingels (D.C.) 13 F.Supp. 654, 659; Park ... McLain, Inc. v. Hoey (D.C.) 19 F.Supp. 990. Used cars ... registered ... ...
-
State v. Ernst
...of our Constitution. Is it likewise unconstitutional as to the requirement of the bond to insure the title? The case of Park McLain, Inc., v. Hoey, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 990, squarely in point on all the questions here involved. That was a three-judge decision in the United States District Court......