City of Fort Worth v. United States

Fifth Circuit

City of Fort Worth v. United States

185 F.2d 397, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1950

Docket13323_1

StatusPublished

This text of 185 F.2d 397 (City of Fort Worth v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Fort Worth v. United States, 185 F.2d 397, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3286 (5th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order granting an interlocutory injunction against the City of Fort Worth, restraining it from refusing to receive sewage from the sewerage systems of the cities of River Oaks and White Settlements, and from prosecuting two certain suits now pending in the 17th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. We think the injunction was wrongfully sued out and should be dissolved.

There is no imminent threat or present danger of the City of Fort Worth refusing to receive said sewage. The United States is not a party to said suits in the state court, and we see no reason why these actions and the one in the federal court should not be permitted to proceed to judgment in regular course, with a race of diligence as to which first comes to final judg *398 ment. Not being an actual or .indispensable party to the suits in the state court, the United States will not be bound by any judgment rendered therein. Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226.

The order appealed from is reversed, the injunction dissolved, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order granting an interlocutory injunction against the City of Fort Worth, restraining it from refusing to receive sewage from the sewerage systems of the cities of River Oaks and White Settlements, and from prosecuting two certain suits now pending in the 17th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. We think the injunction was wrongfully sued out and should be dissolved.

There is no imminent threat or present danger of the City of Fort Worth refusing to receive said sewage. The United States is not a party to said suits in the state court, and we see no reason why these actions and the one in the federal court should not be permitted to proceed to judgment in regular course, with a race of diligence as to which first comes to final judg *398 ment. Not being an actual or .indispensable party to the suits in the state court, the United States will not be bound by any judgment rendered therein. Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226.

The order appealed from is reversed, the injunction dissolved, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F.2d 397, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-fort-worth-v-united-states-ca5-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack