Niagara Falls International Bridge Co. v. Davidson

Second Circuit

Niagara Falls International Bridge Co. v. Davidson

273 F. 156, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1436

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 1921

DocketNo. 215

StatusPublished

This text of 273 F. 156 (Niagara Falls International Bridge Co. v. Davidson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Niagara Falls International Bridge Co. v. Davidson, 273 F. 156, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1436 (2d Cir. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of Judge Hazel, sitting in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York, denying plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pendente lite restraining the defendant, Collector of Customs of the Ninth Customs District, from enforcing certain regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury in respect to automobiles, carriages, and other conveyances and personal baggage brought from Canada across the plaintiffs’ toll bridge over the Niagara river.

The only difference between this suit and that of the International Railway Company (273 Fed. 153), in which we have handed down an opinion, is that the plaintiffs in this suit operate no trolley cars across the bridge. For the reasons stated in the Case of the International Railway Company, the order is affirmed.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of Judge Hazel, sitting in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York, denying plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pendente lite restraining the defendant, Collector of Customs of the Ninth Customs District, from enforcing certain regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury in respect to automobiles, carriages, and other conveyances and personal baggage brought from Canada across the plaintiffs’ toll bridge over the Niagara river.

The only difference between this suit and that of the International Railway Company (273 Fed. 153), in which we have handed down an opinion, is that the plaintiffs in this suit operate no trolley cars across the bridge. For the reasons stated in the Case of the International Railway Company, the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 F. 156, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niagara-falls-international-bridge-co-v-davidson-ca2-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack