Case ID: pr-fed_12/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      OhliN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEST INDIA OIL COMPANY, Plff., v. JOSE E. BENEDICTO, as Treasurer of Porto Rico, and Abelardo Gonzalez Font, as Acting Treasurer of Porto Rico, Dfts.
    San Juan,
    Equity,
    No. 1098.
    CoNsriTurioNAi, Law.
    Jurisdiction — Constitutionality of Law — Amount Immaterial.
    1. Where the amount of over $3,000 is involved, and the proceeding involves the question as to whether an act of the Porto Rico legislature does or does not violate the Constitution of the United States, it is immaterial whether the complainant is domiciled in Porto Rico or outside of Porto Rico.
    Jurisdiction — Previous Decision.
    2. The question involved in this case is identical with the question involved in the decision of this court rendered September 1, 1921, in the case of The Texas Company against Benedicto as Treasurer of Porto Rico, previously reported in this volume at page 329.
    Opinion filed September 1, 1921.
    
      Mr. O. B. Frazer for plaintiff.
    
      Messrs. Salvador Mesire, Attorney General, for Porto Pico, and Jos. A. Loret, Assistant Attorney General, for Porto Pico, for defendants.
   OhliN, Judge,

delivered tbe following opinion:

In this case tbe same point is involved as in case No. 1097, in wbicb tbe Texas company is tbe complainant and tbe Treasurer of Porto Pico and Acting’ Treasurer of Porto Pico are defendants. Tbe only difference between this case and No. 1097 [ante, 329] is that in No. 1097 there was no diversity of citizenship, and tbe bill was based solely upon tbe act of tbe Porto Rico legislature being in conflict 'with tbe Constitution of tbe United States. In this present case, No. 1098, it happens that tbe complainant, tbe West India Oil Company, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, and therefore there exists diversity of citizenship. But this point is of no importance in tbe view of tbe court, inás-much as there exists a Federal constitutional question.

It is therefore ordered that tbe same temporary injunction ■Tssue in this case, No. 1098, as has already been ordered in case No. 1097. And said temporary injunction shall not be enforced until tbe plaintiff shall give a bond satisfactory to the -court in tbe sum of $-.

And it further ordered that tbe motion to dismiss tbe bill be denied; and tbe defendants are allowed -twenty days in which to answer.