Case ID: f_229/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TRENTON & MERCER COUNTY TRACTION CORP. et al. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COM’RS OF NEW JERSEY.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    January 31, 1916.)
    No. 2065.
    Carriers <S=»18 — Enjoining Enforcement of Rates — Temporary Injunction —Discretion of Court.
    In , a suit by a traction company against a state Board of Public Utility Commissioners for an injunction, the grant or refusal of a preliminary injunction pending the hearing of the case was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the three judges who heard the application therefor in the District Court
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 85; Dec. Dig. <®==>18.]
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey; Thos. G. Haight, Judge. .
    Suit by the Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corporation and others against the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the State of New Jersey. From an order (227 Fed. 502) denying a preliminary injunction, complainants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Edward M. Hunt, of Trenton, N. J. (Frank S. Katzenbach, Jr., and G. W. Macpherson, both of Trenton, N. J., of counsel), for appellants.
    Charles E. Bird, of Trenton, N. J., and Frank H. Sommer, of Newark, N. J. (George L. Record, of Jersey City, N. J., of counsel), for appellee.
    Before BUFFINGTON and McPHERSON, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.
   BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This case comes before us on appeal from an order of the court below refusing to issue a preliminary injunction against the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the state of New Jersey pending the hearing of the case. The grant or refusal of such injunction was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the three judges who heard the application in the court below. After a full discussion of the cause in this court we find no abuse of discretion in such refusal, and the decree will be affirmed. We refrain from any present discussion of the important questions here involved, holding our views in abeyance until the cause comes before us on final hearing. As the case is of large importance, both to the people of Trenton and also to the traction company, it should he heard promptly, and as the calendar of the court below is so crowded as to prevent Judges Rellstab and Haight from hearing it soon, the case has been specially assigned for hearing before Hon. Victor B. Woolley, of Wilmington, Del., a member of this court, with a view to its earlier disposition.