Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp
| Decision Date | 11 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7451.,7451. |
| Citation | 74 F.2d 200 |
| Parties | RICHMOND HOSIERY MILLS v. CAMP. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Elbert P. Tuttle and J. B. Brennan, both of Atlanta, Ga., John A. Chambliss and J. B. Sizer, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., and J. Alton Hosch, of Gainesville, Ga., for appellant.
Mastin G. White, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., and Curley C. Hoffpauir, Asst. Counsel, N. R. A., of Washington, D. C., and Lawrence S. Camp, U. S. Atty., and M. Neil Andrews, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the Richmond Hosiery Mills from a decree dismissing its bill to enjoin the United States district attorney from prosecuting it for violating a provision of a code of fair competition adopted for the hosiery industry, and approved by the President, pursuant to section 3(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act. 48 Stat. 195, 196 (15 USCA § 703(a).
Section 3(f) of the act (15 USCA § 703 (f) provides that any violation of such a code shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of not more than $500 for each offense, each day the violation continues to be deemed a separate offense. The code provision above referred to limits productive operations of a manufacturing plant to two shifts of 40 hours each per week. Appellant is a manufacturer of women's seamless hosiery at its plant at Rossville, Ga., and operates three other plants in Tennessee, at which it manufactures children's hose and women's full-fashioned hosiery. It admits that in its knitting department at the Rossville plant it operates three shifts for more than 80 hours a week; but it bases its bill of injunction on the ground that the act does not authorize any limitation of productive operations, or, if it does, that it is unconstitutional. Appellant distinctly disclaimed a belief that the maximum fines, which the act purports to authorize, would be imposed on it; and it is made to appear only that the district attorney intended to institute a single prosecution for a single violation of the code of fair competition. The bill seeks to show irreparable damage by alleging that appellant has a force of not more than 30, out of a total of some 2,000, employees to operate the third shift, and, while the number of employees so engaged is comparatively small, yet the work they do is so intimately connected with the manufacture of hosiery that to dispense with their services would seriously interfere with appellant's business; that the threat of prosecution would, if carried out, disconcert appellant's entire force of employees, impair its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redlands Foothill Groves v. Jacobs
...apprehended' interference. Northport Power & Light Co. v. Hartley, 1931, 283 U.S. 568, 51 S.Ct. 581, 75 L.Ed. 1275; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 5 Cir., 1935, 74 F.2d 200. Mere fears are not enough. First National Bank v. Albright, 1908, 208 U.S. 548, 28 S.Ct. 349, 52 L.Ed. 614; Spielman......
-
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation Same v. Kenzie
...35 S.Ct. 480, 59 L.Ed. 797; McChord v. Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co., 183 U.S. 483, 22 S.Ct. 165, 46 L.Ed. 289; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 200, 201. The cases cited by the corporation are not opposed. Watson v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74, 18 L.Ed. 580; Pierce v. Society of......
-
Coffman v. Federal Laboratories
...301 U.S. 337, 57 S. Ct. 816, 81 L.Ed. 1143; Yarnell v. Hillsborough Packing Co., 5 Cir., 70 F.2d 435, 92 A.L.R. 1475; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 200, and other cases herein cited. The allegations of the complaint are patently deficient in this respect and the reasons fo......
-
United Ins. Co. of Chicago, Ill. v. Maloney
...v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 97; Heller Bros. Co. v. Lind, 66 App.D.C. 306, 86 F.2d 862; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 200. In Fed. Power Comm. v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, at page 385, 58 S.Ct. 963, 968, 82 L.Ed. 1408, the court said: 'S......