Camblos v. Philadelphia & R. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
Upon the application of the complainant in each case for a preliminary injunction, affidavits on his part, and on that of the defendants, were exhibited. The complainant in the first case — a citizen of the state of New York — had, on August 28, 1872, become the holder of one hundred shares of the stock of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Upon the application of the complainant in each case for a preliminary injunction, affidavits on his part, and on that of the defendants, were exhibited. The complainant in the first case — a citizen of the state of New York — had, on August 28, 1872, become the holder of one hundred shares of the stock of the defendants. The complainant in the other case — a citizen of the state of New York — is president of a joint-stock company associated and organized in pursuance of laws of that state, under the name of “The Adams Express Company,” with power to sue in the name of their president. These…
1Opinion of the Court
McKENNAN, Circuit Judge.
The prayers of these bills are the same. Although, in form, they invoke the preventive intervention of the court, they are founded upon the alleged denial of certain legal rights claimed by the Adams Express Company, and it is manifest that the only beneficial measure of' relief would be a mandatory order, constraining the defendant to concede to the express company the exercise and enjoyment of the rights claimed by it. This it may be within the range of the power of the court to decree, but it ought to be done only under-circumstances of special exigency, to avert…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kalamazoo Hack & Bus Co. v. SootsmaMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Baker-Whiteley Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1911
- Camblos v. Philadelphia & R. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1873
- Donavan v. ShaheenNew York Supreme Court · 1962