Johness Investments, Inc. v. City of New Orleans

Fifth Circuit

Johness Investments, Inc. v. City of New Orleans

170 F.2d 143, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2573

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1948

DocketNo. 12512

StatusPublished

This text of 170 F.2d 143 (Johness Investments, Inc. v. City of New Orleans) 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

Johness Investments, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 170 F.2d 143, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2573 (5th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Complaining of a contract known as the terminal agreement which the City of New Orleans signed with ten passenger railroads and the Public Belt-Railroad Commission, plaintiff filed a declaratory action to declare the contract null and void. The claim was “the Terminal Agreement is violative of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution” in that it “encroaches upon certain rights and privileges securing bonds owned by it”.

The district judge, concluding that neither complainant, nor intervenor, nor any other holders of the same class of bonds, in whose interest the suit was brought, are prejudiced or adversely affected by the terminal agreement, dismissed the complaint, and plaintiff has appealed.

A careful examination by us of the record and briefs leaves us in no doubt that the judgment was right and that it should be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Complaining of a contract known as the terminal agreement which the City of New Orleans signed with ten passenger railroads and the Public Belt-Railroad Commission, plaintiff filed a declaratory action to declare the contract null and void. The claim was “the Terminal Agreement is violative of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution” in that it “encroaches upon certain rights and privileges securing bonds owned by it”.

The district judge, concluding that neither complainant, nor intervenor, nor any other holders of the same class of bonds, in whose interest the suit was brought, are prejudiced or adversely affected by the terminal agreement, dismissed the complaint, and plaintiff has appealed.

A careful examination by us of the record and briefs leaves us in no doubt that the judgment was right and that it should be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 F.2d 143, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johness-investments-inc-v-city-of-new-orleans-ca5-1948.