Broad-Grace Arcade Corp. v. Bright
Opinion
The order denying an interlocutory injunction is affirmed (Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 231; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 278 U. S. 322, 326; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 281 U. S. 331, 338), but without prejudice to the power and duty of the District Court, as specially constituted, to inquire and determine whether the court has jurisdiction (Judicial Code, § 37; U. S. Code, Title 28, § 80) both in relation to the amount involved in the controversy (Chase v. Wetzler, 225 U. S. 79, 85, 86; North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Soley, 257 U. S. 216, 221), and with respect to the right of the complainant to maintain this suit in equity (Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240, 243, 244; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U. S. 445, 451-453).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
284 U.S. 588 (Broad-Grace Arcade Corp. v. Bright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.