SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
A. D. WATTS ET AL.; AND ATLANTIC & YADKIN RAILWAY COMPANY V. A. D. WATTS ET AL.; SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY V. A. D. WATTS ET AL.; ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY V. A. D. WATTS ET AL.; AND NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY V. A. D. WATTS 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.
Multiple railroad companies sought preliminary and permanent injunctions under federal law, but the District Court denied the preliminary injunction and granted a stay. The Supreme Court denied the motion for a stay, allowing the District Court discretion to grant one if warranted, and advanced the cases for hearing on the first Monday in November.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
In these cases, which were suits brought under § 266, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of March 4, 1913, c. 160, 37 Stat. 1013, for a preliminary and permanent injunction, a preliminary injunction was denied by the District Court and a stay granted until an application eóuld be made to this court. As the District Court is familiar with the character of the case, and we are not, we deny the motion for a stay, with leave to apply to the District Court for a stay until the matter can be disposed of here, if in its judgment it deem that such a stay should be granted. The motion to advance is granted and the cases set for hearing on the first Monday in November. Mr. S. R. Prince, Mr. L. E. Jeffries and Mr. A. B. Andrews for appellants in Nos. 927, 928.
Mr. Murray Allen, Mr. Forney Johnston and Mr. James F. Wright for appellant in No. 960.
Mr. Thomas W. Davis for appellant in No. 961.
Mr. W. B. Rodman for appellant in No. 962. Mr. James S. Manning and. Air. William P. Bynum for appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 260 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1922)…inclined to refer applications of this kind to the court of three judges who have heard the whole matter, have read the record, and can pass on the issue without additional labor. That was the course taken by this Court in Southern Ry. Co. v. Watts, 259 U. S. 576. A similar order will be made here. The action of the District Court thus constituted, however, will not revive or vitalize the order of injunction granted.by Judge Foster; for that was void, and the parties afjfeeted by it must be left to such cour…
-
Liberty Nat. Bank of S.C. v. McINTOSH, 16 F.2d 906 (4th Cir. 1927)…tponing the day on which the order declining the injunction should have effect, leaving a reasonable time to apply to the Supreme Court for an appeal, if such action should be thought proper. Southern Railway Co. and Other Railroads v. Watts et al., 259 U. S. 576, 42 S. Ct. 585, 66 L. Ed. 1071. The Supreme Court concluded that as it was a matter of which the District Court was advised, and that tribunal was not, the District Court should act upon the application. The case was proceeded with on that theory, t…