State of Alabama v. United States, No. 166

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation73 L.Ed. 675,49 S.Ct. 266,279 U.S. 229
Decision Date08 April 1929
Docket NumberNo. 166
PartiesSTATE OF ALABAMA et al. v. UNITED STATES et al

279 U.S. 229
49 S.Ct. 266
73 L.Ed. 675
STATE OF ALABAMA et al.

v.

UNITED STATES et al.

No. 166.
Argued Feb. 21, 1929.
Decided April 8, 1929.

Mr. Edgar Watkins, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

Mr. E. M. Reidy, of Washington, D. C., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.

Page 230

Mr. Frank W. Gwathmey, of Washington, D. C., for Alabama carriers.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by appellants to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission establishing intrastate rates on fertilizers and fertilizing material in Alabama; and to enjoin numerous railroad companies from making such rates effective. The ground of the Commission's order was that the maintenance of such intrastate rates on a lower basis than those found reasonable would result in unjust discrimination against, and undue prejudice to persons and localities in, interstate commerce.

The order of the Commission is within its general powers, Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342, 354, 355, 358, 34 S. Ct. 833, 58 L. Ed. 1341; Wisconsin R. R. Comm. v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 585, et seq., 42 S. Ct. 232, 66 L. Ed. 371, 22 A. L. R. 1086; and was made after a full inquiry. After a review of the record, the court below denied an application for a preliminary injunction. The case is still pending in the court below for final hearing, and the present appeal relates only to the interlocutory order.

Congress has manifested its solicitude that the power to grant writs of injunction against orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be exercised with special care, by requiring the consideration of applications to be made by three judges and by giving an appeal directly to this court both in the case of interlocutory orders and final decrees. Virginian Ry. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 672, 47 S. Ct. 222, 71 L. Ed. 463. But there is nothing in the legislation to suggest that in the exercise of the judicial power in respect of such writs pertinent principles of equity, as theretofore understood, are to be disregarded or modified. It is well

Page 231

established doctrine that an application for an interlocutory injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; and that an order either granting or denying such an injunction will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the discretion was improvidently exercised. Meccano, Ltd., v. John Wanamaker, 253...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 practice notes
  • Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, No. 84-571
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1985
    ...at 1307, n. 5. 4. See generally United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 56 S.Ct. 829, 80 L.Ed. 1263 (1936); Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675 (1929); United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm'n of West Virginia, 278 U.S. 322, 49 S.Ct. 157, 73 L.Ed. 402 (192......
  • Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge v. Camblos, No. 97-1853
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 20, 1998
    ...a federal court at the preliminary-injunction stage to give a final judgment on the merits" (emphasis added)); Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 231, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675 (1929) (similar). However, it is only as a prudential matter that we normally so circumscribe our review. In......
  • West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., No. 85-5399
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 4, 1986
    ...for preliminary injunction. In this situation our reviewing function is circumscribed." (Emphasis added). 7 Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675 (1929), cited with approval in University of Texas, concluded that the duty of the appellate court upon an appeal fr......
  • Ring v. Spina, No. 230.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 19, 1945
    ...relegated to the discretion of the District Court, which an appellate tribunal is reluctant to disturb. State of Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 230, 231, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L. Ed. 675. But here the trial court's denial of the injunction was based in substantial measure upon conclusio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
68 cases
  • Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, No. 84-571
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1985
    ...at 1307, n. 5. 4. See generally United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 56 S.Ct. 829, 80 L.Ed. 1263 (1936); Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675 (1929); United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm'n of West Virginia, 278 U.S. 322, 49 S.Ct. 157, 73 L.Ed. 402 (192......
  • Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge v. Camblos, No. 97-1853
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 20, 1998
    ...a federal court at the preliminary-injunction stage to give a final judgment on the merits" (emphasis added)); Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 231, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675 (1929) (similar). However, it is only as a prudential matter that we normally so circumscribe our review. In......
  • West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., No. 85-5399
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 4, 1986
    ...for preliminary injunction. In this situation our reviewing function is circumscribed." (Emphasis added). 7 Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675 (1929), cited with approval in University of Texas, concluded that the duty of the appellate court upon an appeal fr......
  • Ring v. Spina, No. 230.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 19, 1945
    ...relegated to the discretion of the District Court, which an appellate tribunal is reluctant to disturb. State of Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 230, 231, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L. Ed. 675. But here the trial court's denial of the injunction was based in substantial measure upon conclusio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT