Central Consumers Co. of New Jersey v. Austin
District Court, N.D. Alabama
In Equity. Suit by the Central Consumers’ Company of New Jersey against Conrad W. Austin and others. On motion for temporary injunction. Motion denied.
1Opinion of the Court
GRUBB, District Judge.
The motion for a temporary' injunction presents this question upon the threshold: Will a federal court enjoin criminal proceedings in a state court, instituted to enforce a valid state law, or a state officer from instituting such proceeding in a state court, even where the enforcement of the state law will indirectly affect property rights and in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits?
[1, 2] The general rule is that equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin criminal proceedings. It is concedly subject to' exceptions. One is where a party to a suit already pending in equity…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Truax v. RaichSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- In Re AyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- In Re SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligottCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Herkness v. IrionDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1926
- Smith v. TillitsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928