Southern Railway Co. v. Watts

Supreme Court

Southern Railway Co. v. Watts

259 U.S. 576, 42 S. Ct. 585, 66 L. Ed. 1071, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2503

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 29, 1922

DocketNo. 927; No. 928; No. 960; No. 961; No. 962

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 259 U.S. 576 (Southern Railway Co. v. Watts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Railway Co. v. Watts, 259 U.S. 576, 42 S. Ct. 585, 66 L. Ed. 1071, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2503 (1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In these cases, which were suits brought under § 266, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of March 4, 1913, c. 160, 37 Stat. 1013, for a preliminary and permanent injunction, a preliminary injunction was denied by the District Court and a stay granted until an application eóuld be made to this court. As the District Court is [577]*577familiar with the character of the case, and we are not, we deny the motion for a stay, with leave to apply to the District Court for a stay until the matter can be disposed of here, if in its judgment it deem that such a stay should be granted. The motion to advance is granted and the cases set for hearing on the first Monday in November.

Mr. S. R. Prince, Mr. L. E. Jeffries and Mr. A. B. Andrews for appellants in Nos. 927, 928. Mr. Murray Allen, Mr. Forney Johnston and Mr. James F. Wright for appellant in No. 960. Mr. Thomas W. Davis for appellant in No. 961. Mr. W. B. Rodman for appellant in No. 962. Mr. James S. Manning and. Air. William P. Bynum for appellees.

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

Per Curiam.

In these cases, which were suits brought under § 266, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of March 4, 1913, c. 160, 37 Stat. 1013, for a preliminary and permanent injunction, a preliminary injunction was denied by the District Court and a stay granted until an application eóuld be made to this court. As the District Court is [577]*577familiar with the character of the case, and we are not, we deny the motion for a stay, with leave to apply to the District Court for a stay until the matter can be disposed of here, if in its judgment it deem that such a stay should be granted. The motion to advance is granted and the cases set for hearing on the first Monday in November.

Mr. S. R. Prince, Mr. L. E. Jeffries and Mr. A. B. Andrews for appellants in Nos. 927, 928. Mr. Murray Allen, Mr. Forney Johnston and Mr. James F. Wright for appellant in No. 960. Mr. Thomas W. Davis for appellant in No. 961. Mr. W. B. Rodman for appellant in No. 962. Mr. James S. Manning and. Air. William P. Bynum for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 U.S. 576, 42 S. Ct. 585, 66 L. Ed. 1071, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-watts-scotus-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack