United States v. Babcock
| Decision Date | 13 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 24.,24. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BABCOCK et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone |
Albert M. Ward, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Indianapolis, Ind., Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, and Connor D. Ross, Deputy Atty. Gen., of Indiana, for the United States.
Hoffman, Shoaff & Hoffman, of Fort Wayne, Ind., for defendants.
Plaintiff asks for a permanent injunction against defendants, restraining defendants and all of them from entering upon and cutting through Lincoln Highway between the city of Ft. Wayne, in the state of Indiana, and the Ohio line.
The facts, briefly stated, are that defendant J. P. Babcock is engaged in the construction of a large open ditch under a contract authorized by the superior court of Allen county, Ind., on the petition of certain landowners for drainage. The contract under which defendant Babcock is operating provides that the ditch shall be constructed across Lincoln Highway, and that before crossing said highway the contractor shall cause to be constructed a temporary wooden bridge. No provision, however, is made for the construction of a permanent bridge after the highway has been cut through, or for replacing the roadbed in any other manner. The construction of the ditch across the highway will leave an opening in the pavement large and deep enough to prevent travel, and, unless repaired by the construction of a bridge or culvert, will constitute a permanent obstruction.
Defendant Babcock has already prepared a temporary wooden bridge, so that traffic will not be impeded or stopped during his operations, and disclaims any liability to replace the pavement after the ditch has been cut through. No provision has been made by any county, township, state, or government department to repair the pavement. In fact, the briefs submitted by counsel on both sides disclose the fact that there is a controversy as to the question of responsibility for replacing the pavement.
Lincoln Highway is now, and for a long time prior to the beginning of the drainage proceedings was, a national trunk highway, connecting the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, with the city of San Francisco, Cal., is a rural post road through Allen county, Ind., is in constant use in interstate commerce and traffic, and is in fact fit for and subject to being used by the United States government for military purposes. The United States government contributed the sum of $161,594.44 for the construction of the concrete pavement on Lincoln Highway between the city of Ft. Wayne, in Allen county, Ind., and the Ohio state line.
Defendants argue earnestly that the injunction should be denied, for the reason that section 265 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1242) provides that an injunction shall not be granted by a federal court to stay proceedings in a state court, except in bankruptcy cases, and that the federal court has no jurisdiction, for the reason that the government of the United States has no proprietary interest in the Lincoln Highway; the money paid by the government being merely a voluntary contribution in aid of the state in the construction of the pavement on the roadway in question.
While the Judicial Code provides that a writ of injunction shall not be granted in any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any state court, this court is of the opinion that this rule is not intended to apply to an action wherein the United States government is a party, and wherein it is necessary to issue such injunction to protect the interests of the government of the United States. Section 2, article 3, of the Constitution provides, among other things, that the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, and to controversies to which the United States shall be a party. Clearly this provision of the Constitution is intended to give to the federal government jurisdiction, both in law and equity, where the United States is an interested party.
The highway in question is a part of the Indiana state highway system, and is designated as state road No. 2. The Federal Aid Act of 1916 (Comp. St. § 7477a) provides that no money shall be expended in aid of the construction of rural post roads in any state until the Legislature of such state has assented to the provisions of the Federal Aid Act.
The State Highway Act of the state of Indiana provides (Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1921, § 7671j2) that no state highway shall be torn up or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Leiter Minerals
...881, D.C.Calif., 97 F.Supp. 50; Brown v. Wright, 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 484; United States v. McIntosh, 4 Cir., 57 F.2d 573; United States v. Babcock, 7 Cir., 6 F.2d 160; United States v. Inaba, 9 Cir., 291 F. 416; United States v. Taylor's Oak Ridge Corp., D.C.Tenn., 89 F.Supp. 28; United States......
-
In re Green River Drainage Area
...244, 3 F.Supp. 715, affirmed, 4 Cir., 70 F.2d 507, certiorari denied 293 U.S. 586, 55 S.Ct. 101, 79 L.Ed. 682; United States v. Babcock, D.C.D.Ind., Ft. Wayne D., 1925, 6 F.2d 160, modified, 7 Cir., 1925, 9 F.2d 905; Mitchell v. Spanish Fork West Field Irrigation Co., 1 Utah 2d 313, 265 P.2......
-
United States v. Sid-Mars Rest. & Lounge Inc., 09-30869
...Oak Ridge Corp., 89 F. Supp. 28 (E.D. Tenn. 1950); United States v. Cain, 72 F. Supp. 897 (W.D. Mich. 1947); United States v. Babcock, 6 F.2d 160 (D. Ind. 1925); and United States v. Inaba, 291 F. 416 (E.D. Wash. 1923). 7. Further demonstrating that Leiter Minerals did not meaningfully, if ......
-
U.S. v. Sid–mars Rest. & Lounge Inc.
...v. Taylor's Oak Ridge Corp., 89 F.Supp. 28 (E.D.Tenn.1950); United States v. Cain, 72 F.Supp. 897 (W.D.Mich.1947); United States v. Babcock, 6 F.2d 160 (D.Ind.1925); and United States v. Inaba, 291 F. 416 (E.D.Wash.1923). 7. Further demonstrating that Leiter Minerals did not meaningfully, i......