ALABAMA ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

U.S. | 1929-04-08
No. 166
279 U.S. 229 Supreme Court of the United States (1929) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 73 L. Ed. 675 · 49 S. Ct. 266 · 1929 U.S. LEXIS 348 · SCDB 1928-066
Cited by 235 cases

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.

Synopsis

Alabama challenged an Interstate Commerce Commission order that established intrastate railroad rates on fertilizers lower than those the Commission deemed reasonable for interstate commerce, claiming such rates constituted unjust discrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that appellate courts review such interlocutory orders only for abuse of discretion rather than on the merits, and finding no abuse here. The Court reaffirmed that special statutory procedures governing injunctions against ICC orders do not alter established equitable principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in granting preliminary relief.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Sutherland

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 Com-mission’s order was that the maintenance of' such-intrastate rates on a lower basis than those found reasonable would result in unjiist 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, 354-5, 358; Wisconsin R. R. Comm. v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 585, et seq.; and was made after a Mil 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. 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 wellestablished 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; 2 High on Injunctions (4th Ed.) § 1696. And see Rice & Adams Corporation v. Lathrop, 278 U. S. 509. The rule generally to be applied in the exercise of that, discretion, is stated in our recent decision in Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, post, p. 813.

That the doctrine to be followed in reviewing such an order applies in the case of an order of a court of three judges denying an interlocutory injunction does not admit of doubt. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 278 U. S. 322, 326; Chicago, G. W. Ry. v. Kendall, 266 U. S. 94, 100. The duty of this Court, therefore, upon an appeal from such an order, at least generally, is not to decide the merits but simply to determine whether the discretion of the court below has been abused. See United States v. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co., 225 U. S. 306, 325. An examination of the record here reveals no such abuse, and we must remand the case to the court below for final disposition on the merits.

Decree affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (77 total)

  • Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1938)
    …anamaker, 253 U. S. 136, 141; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U. S. 588 (semble); cf. Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co., 262 U. S. 43, 50-51; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 281 U. S. 331, 338; Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 231; Rogers v. Hill, 289 U. S. 582, 587. Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, 525; Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 494; Metropolitan Water Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist., 223 U. S. 519, 523; United States Fidelity & Gua…
  • Univ. OF Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1981)
    …ls was not who should pay for the interpreter, but rather whether the District Court had abused its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the University to pay for him. Brown v. Chote, 411 U. S. 452, 457; Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229. The two issues are significantly different, since whether the preliminary injunction should have issued depended on the balance of factors listed in Canal Authority, while whether the University should ultimately bear the cost of the interpreter de…
  • Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1939)
    …or either, § 8, Fla. Gen. Laws, 1937, c. 17807. Borden’s Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 194, 211-213. Polk Co. v. Glover, 305 U. S. 5. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 165; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 215. Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 231; Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 279 U. S. 813. § 10, Fla. Gen. Laws, 1937, c. 17807. Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214-16; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U. S. 445, 451-52. Cf. Borden’s Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 194, 203; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyd…

Previewing 3 of 77 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw