Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. City of Tacoma
| Decision Date | 11 October 1911 |
| Docket Number | 1,841. |
| Citation | 190 F. 682 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | SPERRY & HUTCHINSON CO. v. CITY OF TACOMA et al. |
P. P Carroll and Daniel J. Lyons, for complainant.
T. L Stiles, for defendants.
The object of this suit is to obtain judicial protection of the right to carry on in the city of Tacoma the complainant's business as a merchant and supplier to other retail merchants of trading stamps, which right is menaced, as the bill of complaint avers, by the defendants, who threaten to exact payment of exorbitant license fees from each merchant using trading stamps, and by criminal prosecutions enforce an ordinance of the city which has been heretofore by this court decreed to be void, because it is an unwarranted deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The bill of complaint avers that enforcement of the ordinance will effectually prevent patrons of the complainant from complying with their contracts for the purchase and use of trading stamps, and will cause a loss of revenue amounting to many thousands of dollars annually. The jurisdiction of this court to determine the controversy involved is grounded upon alleged diversity of citizenship of the parties. The case has been submitted to the court upon the complainant's application for an injunction pendente lite and the defendants' exceptions to the bill of complaint.
It is the opinion of the court that the city ordinance which is attacked is not a statute of the state. Therefore the procedure is not controlled by the provision of the act of Congress of 1910 (36 Stat. 557) requiring the presence of three judges for the hearing of an application for an interlocutory injunction.
It is also the opinion of the court that the use of trading stamps in retail merchandising business is legitimate, that the ordinance referred to is designed to prohibit such use and is void, for reasons given in the decision of the Supreme Court of this state in the case of Leonard v. Bassindale, 46 Wash. 301, 89 P. 879, and of this court in the case of Ex parte Hutchinson (C.C.) 137 F. 949, and that the showing made by the complainant is sufficient, prima facie, to entitle it to an injunction pendente lite. In opposition to that showing the defendants have filed a paper in the case, styled 'Exceptions to the Bill of Complaint for Impertinence,' and affidavits showing that there was at the time of the commencement of this suit and still is another suit, by this complainant against these same defendants, pending in a court of this state, which had and has complete jurisdiction thereof, and that the issues in that suit are identically the same as the issues tendered by the bill of complaint in this case. These are the only grounds of defense so far divulged.
The exceptions can only be considered as a motion to expunge designated parts of the bill, and, being so considered, the court grants the motion as to all of paragraph 18 and that part of 8 to which the exceptions refer, including the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...beginning in 1911, has held that a municipal ordinance is not a statute within the meaning of that section. Sperry & Mutchinson Co. v. City of Tacoma (C. C.) 190 F. 682; Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Memphis (D. C.) 198 F. 955; Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. City of Birmingh......
-
Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. City of Birmingham
... ... reason. The motion is denied. Sperry-Hutchinson Co. v ... City of Tacoma (C.C.) 190 F. 682; Cumberland ... Telephone Co. v. Memphis ... ...
-
Case v. Mountain Timber Co.
...had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and the subject-matter of the suit. Sperry-Hutchinson Co. v. City of Tacoma (C.C.) 190 F. 682; Id. (D.C.) 199 F. 853; Powers v. Blue B. & L. Ass'n (C.C.) 86 F. 705, 708. No question is made but that the district court of Douglas county had jur......
-
Ex parte Collins. No. ___, Original
...to a state statute, and prevents hasty interference with the action of a sovereign state.' 45 Cong. Rec. 7253. 2 Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. City of Tacoma (C. C.) 190 F. 682; Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Memphis (D. C.) 198 F. 955; Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. City of Bir......