State of Alabama v. United States, 166
| Decision Date | 08 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 166,166 |
| Citation | 73 L.Ed. 675,49 S.Ct. 266,279 U.S. 229 |
| Parties | STATE OF ALABAMA et al. v. UNITED STATES et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Edgar Watkins, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Mr. E. M. Reidy, of Washington, D. C., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Frank W. Gwathmey, of Washington, D. C., for Alabama carriers.
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 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 U. S. 136, 141, 40 S. Ct. 463, 64 L....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ring v. Spina, 230.
...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 conclusions of law ......
-
United States v. Schechter
...S. Ct. 452, 70 L. Ed. 878; United States v. N. Y. Central R. R., 272 U. S. 457, 47 S. Ct. 130, 71 L. Ed. 350; Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 49 S. Ct. 266, 73 L. Ed. 675; Minnesota Rate Cases 230 U. S. 352, 33 S. Ct. 729, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, Ann. Cas. 1916A, ......
-
Carroll v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York
...of the court. Harrisonville v. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 1933, 289 U.S. 334, 53 S.Ct. 602, 77 L.Ed. 1208; Alabama v. United States, 1929, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675; Rice & Adams Corp. v. Lathrop, 1929, 278 U.S. 509, 49 S.Ct. 220, 73 L.Ed. 480. "As a general rule, an injunct......
-
Simmons Co. v. Crew, 3981.
...his discretion. Lea et al. v. Vasco Products, Inc. (C.C.A.) 81 F.(2d) 1011, and authorities there cited; Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L. Ed. 675; South Carolina Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 286 U. S. 525, 52 S.Ct. 494, 76 L.Ed. 1268; Binford v. J. ......