Central Trust Co. of New York v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co. of Indianapolis
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana
On a former hearing, a preliminary injunction ivas granted. A statement of the case is found in the opinion then delivered. 80 Fed. 218. The defendant the city of Indianapolis now demurs to Hie bill, and also moves to dissolve the injunction.
Read the full summary
On a former hearing, a preliminary injunction ivas granted. A statement of the case is found in the opinion then delivered. 80 Fed. 218. The defendant the city of Indianapolis now demurs to Hie bill, and also moves to dissolve the injunction. It appears that, after the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, the city of Indianapolis brought suit in one of the state courts against one Navin, to recover a penalty, under an ordinance of the city, for alleged misconduct of Navin in boarding a. street car, and refusing to pay the fare demanded, namely, five cents. This alleged offense by…
1Opinion of the CourtShow Alter., Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above): It is again urged that this suit cannot be maintained against Prosecuting Attorney Wiltsie, because he represents the state of Indiana. If the enactment here in question be valid, then Mr. Wiltsie does represent the state; not the state as a proprietor, however, but the state as a governmental agency. If the enactment be invalid, then he does not represent anything. On the latter hypothesis, he, or any successor to him in office, in attempting to enforce the penalties in the enactment of 1897, would be merely a wrongdoer. The theory of the bill is that that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boyd's Lessee v. GravesSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State AuditorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Avon Nursing & Rehabilitation v. BecerraCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- Consolidated Water Co. v. City of San DiegoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1897
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1907
- Fearis v. GaffordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- (SS) Braswell v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.