HILL, JR., ET AL.
v.
WALLACE, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court modified an injunction in a dispute over the Future Trading Act of 1921, which regulated commodity futures trading through designated "contract markets." The Court restrained the Chicago Board of Trade and the Secretary of Agriculture from enforcing certain membership and reporting requirements under the Act during the pendency of the appeal, while permitting temporary designation of the Board as a contract market without full compliance with those requirements, conditioned on the plaintiffs posting a $25,000 bond for damages if the Act was ultimately upheld as valid.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The order entered herein, November 21, 1921, so far as it operates to stay proceedings pending the appeal is hereby vacated, and in lieu thereof it is ordered (the appelleés not objecting), that during the pendency of said appeal in this court and for 20 days after final decree herein the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago and its directors, appellees, are restrained from admitting to membership in said , board any representative of a cooperative association of producers not otherwise admissible to membership' under the rules of said Board of Trade in effect prior to the institution of this, suit, and from making and filing or requiring appellants or any other of its members to make and file any report required by any rule or regulation issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of Congress approved August 24, 1921, entitled “ The Future Trading Act,” and from modifying its rules and by-laws in respect to admitting to membership any representative of any such cooperative association or in respect to the making and filing of such reports, in order to entitle said Board of Trade to be designated as a “ contract market; ” .
And that during the same period the appellee, Henry C. Wallacé, Secretary of Agriculture, is restrained from designating the said Chicago Board of Trade as a “ cón tract market” except temporarily for and during said period, and is restrained from requiring said Board of Trade during said period to comply with the conditions and requirements of § 5 of said act as to the making and filing of reports showing the details and terms of transactions entered into by the board or the members thereof, or as to the keeping by the board or its members of a. record showing the details and terms of said transactions; and from requiring the governing board of said Chicago Board of Trade during said period to admit to member-. ship and the privileges thereof any representative of a co-. operative association of producers not otherwise admissible to membership under the rules of said Board of Trade in effect prior to the institution of this suit;
Mr. Henry S. Robbins for appellants.
Mr. Solicitor General Beck for appellees.
And that the said Henry C. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, is authorized to designate the said Board of Trade of the City of Chicago as a “ contract market ” under the said act of Congress, for and during the same period, without requiring said Board of Trade to comply with the conditions and requirements of § 5 of said act in the several respects above mentioned.
This order is made upon condition that within 5 days hereafter the appellants execute unto the appellees herein and file in this cause-a good and sufficient bond in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), with sureties to be approved by the clerk of this court, and conditioned that the appellants will promptly pay any and all damages which may be suffered by the appellees herein, or any of them, by reason of the granting or continuance of this order, if it is ultimately adjudged that the said “ Future Trading Act ” is a valid act in whole or in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graham v. du Pont, 262 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1923)…ountry and would have seriously injured not only the members of the Board but also the producing and consuming public. This phase of the situation was so clear that the Government in effect consented to the temporary injunction. See Hill v. Wallace, 257 U. S. 310, s. c. 615. Under these extraordinary and most exceptional circumstances, it was held that § 3224 was not applicable to prevent an injunction against collection of such a prohibitive tax imposed for the purpose of regulating the future grain [*258]…
-
Homan MFG. Co., Inc. v. Long, 242 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1957)…instrumentality of the State of Georgia; Graham v. DuPont, 1923, 262 U.S. 234, 43 S.Ct. 567, 67 L.Ed. 965; Bailey v. George, 1922, 259 U.S. 16, 42 S.Ct. 419, 66 L.Ed. 816; Hill v. Wallace, 1922, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed. 822; and see 1921, 257 U.S. 310, 42 S.Ct. 108, 66 L.Ed. 253 and 257 U.S. 615, 42 S.Ct. 96, 66 L.Ed. 398 for interim orders, government virtually consented to temporary injunction; Dodge v. Brady, 1916, 240 U.S. 122, 36 S.Ct 277, 60 L.Ed. 560; Dodge v. Osborn, 1916, 240 U.S. 118, 8…
-
United States v. Doelker, 327 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1964)…5, 77, C.A.6; Reeves v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 314 F. 2d 438, 439-440, C.A.6. However, we are of the opinion that the variance here is not material. This Court said in Billingsley v. United States, 274 F. 86, 90, cert. den., 257 U.S. 656, 42 S.Ct. 168, 66 L.Ed. 420: “Nor does the date in an indictment necessarily limit the prosecution to proof of the commission of the offense upon that identical date, provided the date proven is prior to the date of the filing of the indictment, and is in such re…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence