Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/66/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:46:15+00:00

Document:
1. The question of jurisdictional amount is properly determined on the bill and motion to dismiss where the motion in effect traverses only a general allegation of the amount involved, and admits the other allegations, touching the subject, merely challenging their sufficiency to show jurisdiction. P. 307 U. S. 71.
On submission of the question on bill and motion to dismiss, the burden of showing jurisdictional value in controversy is on the plaintiff. P. 307 U. S. 72.
2. In a class suit by and on behalf of the members of a society who have a common and undivided interest, the jurisdictional amount or value is involved if for any member who is a party, the matter in controversy is of that value, or if, to the aggregate of all members in the suit, it is of that value. P. 307 U. S. 72.
3. In a suit to restrain enforcement of a statute prohibiting a business, the amount in controversy is the value of the right to conduct the business free of such prohibition. P. 307 U. S. 74.
The cost of compliance is evidence of the value of the right to be free from a statutory prohibition. P. 307 U. S. 75.
profit, and share in the earnings through mandatory distribution under the articles of association, and not by way of dividends, they are proper parties to the action. P. 307 U. S. 73.
(2) Since the members, because of the interposition of the statute, cannot in combination license production and collect fees in Florida, they have a common and undivided interest in the matter in controversy in this class suit. P. 307 U. S. 74.
(3) Admitted allegations of the bill support a finding that the matter in controversy -- the value of the aggregate rights of all members to conduct their business through the Society -- exceeds $3,000 in value. P. 307 U. S. 75.
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, and KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269, distinguished.
(4) In view of the allegations of the bill raising doubts of the constitutionality of the Act, and in view of the penalties attached to its violation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was properly overruled. P. 307 U. S. 76.
5. A motion to dismiss a bill for failure to state a cause of action is determined on the face of the bill, without resort to affidavits used on the accompanying motion for a preliminary injunction. P. 307 U. S. 76.
6. Whether to grant or refuse a motion to dismiss before answer is largely a matter of discretion for the trial court. P. 307 U. S. 76.
7. Where the bill makes an attack upon the constitutionality of a state statute, supported by factual allegations sufficiently strong, as here, to raise grave doubts of the constitutionality of the Act in the mind of the trial court, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should be denied. Id.
Appeal from an order of the District Court, of three judges, overruling a motion to dismiss the bill and granting an interlocutory injunction, in a suit to restrain enforcement of a Florida statute forbidding combinations of owners of copyrighted musical compositions.
This is an appeal from the order of a three-judge court refusing to dismiss a bill of complaint on motion for failure to set out facts sufficient to show Federal or equity jurisdiction, or to constitute a cause of action, and granting an interlocutory injunction against the enforcement of a Florida statute aimed at combinations fixing the price for the privilege of rendering privately or publicly for profit copyrighted musical compositions. § 266, Jud.Code.
this statutory right and to pay royalties for public performances for profit, and that authors, composers and publishers were unable individually to enforce their exclusive right because of the expense of detecting and suing for infringement throughout the United States. The Society was founded in 1914 to license performance of copyrighted music for profit and otherwise protect the copyrights. The state statute was directed at organizations like the Society, and became effective on June 9, 1937. [Footnote 3] So far as is important here, the statute makes it unlawful for owners of copyrighted musical compositions to combine into any corporation, association or other entity to fix license fees "for any use or rendition of copyrighted vocal or instrumental musical compositions for private or public performance for profit" when the members of the combination constitute "a substantial number of the persons, firms or corporations within the United States" owning musical copyrights. It declares the combination an unlawful monopoly, the price-fixing in restraint of trade, and the collection of license fees and all contracts by the combination illegal.
worth in excess of $100,000; that it would cost each individual more than $10,000 to create an agency in Florida to protect himself against infringement by unauthorized public performances for profit, to issue licenses, and to check on the accuracy of uses reported; that fees collected in 1936 in Florida amounted to $59,306.81, and that similar sums were expected in the future, and that, in 1936, each of the three publishers received more than $50,000 from the Society, and each individual more than $5,000.
A motion for a temporary injunction was made on February 7, 1938, the same day the bill was filed. Voluminous affidavits were presented in support of the motion. They tend to substantiate the allegations of the complaint on the value of the copyrights and the income from the Society. Each publisher posed that it had received more than $50,000 from the Society in 1936, that its contract with the Society had a value in excess of $200,000, and that to fix prices on each composition for each use in Florida would require an expenditure of more than $25,000. The affidavits of the individuals showed annual incomes to them from the Society of from $3,000 to $9,000; contracts with the Society which the affiants valued in the thousands of dollars, and an expense, in one instance, as high as $5,000 to comply with the requirements of the Florida statute.
per curiam decision. It found that "the matter in controversy exceeds $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs."
"from the allegations of the bill . . . that the jurisdictional amount of $3,000.00 . . . is not involved . . . in that it appears that the suit is brought for the benefit of the members of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers . . . , and it does not affirmatively appear that the loss of any member of said society due to the enforcement of [the challenged act] would amount to the . . . necessary jurisdictional amount."
"because the plaintiffs have not shown the extent of loss or damage they would suffer by reason of the enforcement of said State law, as compared with the amount of profit they would make by the nonenforcement of said law."
As the form of the motion on the jurisdiction admitted the bill's statements, it was submitted on the allegations without the production of any evidence.
the mode of its determination is left to the trial court. [Footnote 4] Both complainants and defendants were content to rest upon the bill and motion.
The bill alleges that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Such a general allegation, when not traversed, is sufficient, unless it is qualified by others which so detract from it that the court must dismiss sua sponte or on defendants' motion. [Footnote 5] In this instance, the allegation is, in effect, traversed by the language of the motion which asserts that no plaintiff has shown loss from enforcement equal to the jurisdictional amount. No other allegations are denied. By this method of attack, the facts set out in the bill are left unchallenged for the court to accept as true without further proof. The burden of showing by the admitted facts that the federal court has jurisdiction rests upon the complainants. If there were any doubt of the good faith of the allegations, the court might have called for their justification by evidence. [Footnote 6] In view of the unchallenged facts, federal jurisdiction will be adequately established if it appears that, for any member who is a party, the matter in controversy is of the value of the jurisdictional amount [Footnote 7] or if, to the aggregate of all the members in this representative suit, the matter in controversy is of that value.
individuals more than $5,000 per year each. The cost of compliance with its requirements is evidence also of the value of the right of freedom from the act. [Footnote 11] The complainants, other than the Society, allege without traverse that the cost to each one of providing individually in Florida the services now provided by the Society for each member would exceed $10,000. Whether this is annually, for the length of the agreement, or for some other term is not shown. From these facts, the finding of the District Court that the matter in controversy -- the value of the aggregate rights of all members to conduct their business through the Society -- exceeds $3,000 in value is fully supported.
among them. The damage in the Associated Press case was to its members, and this was not shown. Neither was it alleged or proved that any member threatened to withdraw or to reduce its payments.
of the act are provided. [Footnote 16] The manner in, and extent to, which the challenged statute offends or complies with the applicable provisions of the Constitution will be clearer after final hearing and findings. [Footnote 17] The findings here were on the motion for interlocutory injunction, and on the issue of jurisdiction.
Attorney General of the State, the officer charged with supervision of enforcement, [Footnote 20] of readiness and willingness "to prosecute any violations of said act," sufficiently establish the immediate danger from enforcement. [Footnote 21] No objection appears as to the adequacy of the bond or the other terms of the injunction. These remain under the control of the lower court. Ordinarily it would be expected that, where a temporary injunction is considered necessary to protect the rights of complainants against the allegedly unconstitutional action of state officers, under a statute, a final order would follow with all convenient speed. (3) The order of the trial court was entered April 5, 1938. The findings of fact and conclusions of law were not filed until May 17, 1938, after the first assignment of errors had pointed out the omission and after the appeal was allowed. The original assignment of error, which had relied upon the failure to comply with Equity Rule 70 1/2, was amended to show subsequent compliance, but no assignment of error was made on account of the fact that the findings were out of time. The objection was taken in the statement of points to be relied upon on the appeal and in appellants' brief in the specification of errors to be urged. Better practice dictates the filing of the finding of facts and conclusions of law before or contemporaneously with the order or decree. It would be useless, however, to reverse the order granting the temporary injunction and remand the cause. The temporary injunction would now be in order. (4) In answer to the fourth objection, it may be said that the issue, like that of constitutionality, can be more satisfactorily disposed of upon final hearing.
Act of March 4, 1909, § 1(e), c. 320, 35 Stat. 1075, 17 U.S.C. § 1(e).
Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 115, 169 U. S. 120-121; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 298 U. S. 184; KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269, 299 U. S. 278.
KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269, 299 U. S. 277; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 298 U. S. 189.
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 297 U. S. 241-242; Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583.
"Section 1. All royalties and license fees collected by the Society shall be from time to time as ordered by the Board of Directors distributed among its members, provided, however:"
"(a) That all expenses of operation of the Society and sums payable to foreign affiliated Societies shall be deducted therefrom and duly paid; and"
"(b) That the Board of Directors, by two-thirds vote of those present at any regular meeting may add to the Reserve Fund any portion not exceeding 10% Of the total amount available for distribution; and"
"(c) That the net amount remaining after such deduction for distribution shall be apportioned as follows: one-half (1/2) thereof to be distributed among the 'Music Publisher' members, and one-half (1/2) among the 'Composer and Author' members respectively."
Cf. Troy Bank v. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39; Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3.
Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, 165 U. S. 114; cf. Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 205 U. S. 322, 205 U. S. 334; McNeill v. Southern Ry. Co., 202 U. S. 543; Bitterman v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205; Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140.
Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140; Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Comm'n, 304 U. S. 209, 304 U. S. 215; Healy v. Ratta, 292 U. S. 263; Buck v. Gallagher, post, p. 307 U. S. 95.
298 U. S. 298 U.S. 178.
Polk Company v. Glover, 305 U. S. 5, 305 U. S. 9.
O'Keefe v. New Orleans, 273 F. 560; Wright v. Barnard, 233 F. 329; Doherty v. McDowell, 276 F. 728; Ralston Steel Car Co. v. National Dump Car Co., 222 F. 590, 592. Compare Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 185 U. S. 144-145; Wisconsin v. Illinois, 270 U.S. 634; Wilshire Oil Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 100, 295 U. S. 102-103.
Fine $50 to $5,000 and imprisonment one to ten years or either. § 8, Fla.Gen.Laws, 1937, c. 17807.
Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 194, 293 U. S. 211-213; Polk Co. v. Glover, 305 U. S. 5.
Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 209 U. S. 165; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 263 U. S. 215.
Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 279 U. S. 231; Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 279 U. S. 813.
§ 10, Fla.Gen.Laws, 1937, c. 17807.
Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 263 U. S. 214-216; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U. S. 445, 274 U. S. 451-452.
(3) The court below failed to require a bond or other conditions adequate to protect the people in Florida who might be injured by the injunction.
First. Do general allegations of unconstitutionality, [Footnote 2/1] similarly general affidavits, and general findings by the trial court show that the Florida statute against monopolistic price-fixing is "novel, if not unique" [Footnote 2/2] State legislation, and raise such "grave constitutional questions" that a federal court should suspend the statute to permit complainants to continue exacting monopoly tribute from the public until the court hears evidence?
bill attacking other provisions of the statute raise only moot questions. If this record can be said to raise any "grave," "novel," or "unique" question at all, that question is whether a State has power to prohibit price-fixing by monopolies in restraint of trade.
Even according to the comparatively new judicial formula here applied, the only issue is whether "novel . . . , unique," or "grave constitutional questions" are raised by the charge that these state officials will perform their sole duty under the Florida statute of prosecuting appellees for violations of the prohibitions against monopolistic price-fixing. Paraphrasing this formula, the question here actually becomes: when complainants charge in a Federal Court of Equity that a State has passed, and its officers are about to enforce, a law against monopolistic price-fixing, is there so much doubt about the power of the State to prohibit monopolistic price-fixing that operation of the law must enjoined and effect denied to it until evidence is heard by the Court?
of copyrighted music for profit in the United States. Not only does this combination fix prices through a self-perpetuating board of twenty-four directors, but its power over the business of musical rendition is so great that it can refuse to sell rights to single compositions, and can and does require purchasers to take, at a monopolistically fixed annual fee, the entire repertory of all numbers controlled by the combination. And these fees are not the same for like purchasers, even in the same locality. Evidence shows that competing radio stations in the same city, operating on the same power and serving the same audience, are charged widely variant fees for identical performance rights, not because of competition, but by the exercise of monopoly power. Since it appears that music is an essential part of public entertainment for profit, radio stations or other businesses arbitrarily compelled to pay discriminatory fees are faced with price-fixing practices that could destroy them, because the Society has a monopoly of practically all -- if not completely all -- available music. When consideration is also given to the fact that an arbitrarily fixed lower rate is granted to a favored station itself controlled by another instrument of public communication -- a newspaper -- the ultimate possibilities for control of the channels of public communication and information are apparent.
State law prohibiting such a combination present "grave constitutional questions"?
It is my position that a State law prohibiting monopolistic price-fixing in restraint of trade is not "novel" and "unique," and raises no "grave constitutional questions." The constitutional right of the States to pass laws against monopolies should now be beyond possibility of controversy.
"That state legislatures have the right . . . to prevent unlawful combinations to prevent competition and in restraint of trade, and to prohibit and punish monopolies, is not open to question, [Footnote 2/9]"
presentation of evidence to a federal court at what point in our history and in what manner did they lose it? The people have not exercised their exclusive authority, by Constitutional amendment, to strip the States of their power over price-fixing combinations, and thus raise monopoly above the traditional power of legislative bodies.
"Due process" has been judicially endowed with great elasticity in relation to property rights, but it is inconceivable that it would afford refuge for monopolies deemed undesirable by the people's representatives. When a legislature, as a matter of public policy, determines to prohibit monopolistic combinations, we cannot, under any doctrine of "due process," rightfully "review their economics or their facts." [Footnote 2/13] And, although "due process" is invoked, can evidence either add to or take from the legislative power to permit, regulate, or prohibit monopolies in the public interest?
the performance of compositions for profit is prohibited by the statute. . . ."
It is said the bill alleges "property taken without compensation." If the statute, of itself, takes property (and no charge of unconstitutional application of the statute is made), is evidence required to show the manner of the taking? It is said the bill alleges that the statute violates "equal protection." But the sole thing threatened is prosecution of an admitted price-fixing combination -- comprised of practically all the musical copyright owners and publishers in the nation.
". . . if an evil [of monopoly] is specially experienced in a particular branch of business, the Constitution embodies no prohibition of laws confined to the evil, or doctrinaire requirement that they should be couched in all-embracing terms. It does not forbid the cautious advance, step by step, and the distrust of generalities which sometimes have been the weakness, but often the strength, of English legislation. [Footnote 2/15]"
price-fixing. What evidence will serve to enlighten the Court on the statutory penalty? That penalty is set out clearly in the statute. If it invalidates the statute, that determination should be made now.
The present case illustrates how the recently fashioned judicial formula under which State laws must be enjoined, if "grave constitutional questions" are presented in a complaint, actually results in an automatic judicial suspension of State statutes upon any general complaint to a federal court. The apparently inevitable operation of this formula runs counter to the Tenth Amendment, intended to preserve the control of the States over their own local legislation, and opens the door to further evasions of the Eleventh Amendment protecting the States from suits in federal courts. [Footnote 2/16] A lower federal court's refusal in its "discretion" to suspend a State statute was recently reversed because "grave constitutional questions" -- requiring evidence -- were deemed raised by charges that the statute, by requiring citrus fruit cans to be truthfully labeled, violated the Constitution. [Footnote 2/17] And here, where the District Court enjoined a State law in its "discretion," the injunction is stained by a holding that evidence should be heard because "grave constitutional questions" are involved. However the lower court's "discretion" may be exercised, the formula apparently achieves but one result -- State statutes are suspended.
"sponsored by an organized group . . . for their own selfish aggrandizement . . . without an adequate hearing being afforded to complainants and others similarly situated,"
"unless the enforcement of this State statute is restrained . . . , other States in addition to Florida, Montana, Washington, Nebraska and Tennessee may enact similar statutes . . . , all of which would work undue hardship on complainants and would violate the spirit of the Constitution. . . ."
These are some of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- of the bill's allegations deemed to raise "grave constitutional questions." Is the temporary injunction approved so that the federal court in Florida may hear evidence on what constitutes the public interest of Florida? Shall the court hear evidence to determine whether or not, "unless the enforcement of this statute is restrained," other States, "in addition to Florida," may similarly prohibit appellees' monopoly?
revolutionary departure from our constitutional form of government, under which the wisdom of legislation, within the field of legislative action, was left to the judgment of elected representatives of the people.
"Ordinarily it would be expected that, where a temporary injunction is considered necessary . . . , a final order would follow with all convenient speed."
These eleven appellees alleged in their bill for injunction that they sued on behalf of themselves and the more than 1,000 other (American) members of the Society. No determination is made here "that for any member who is a party, the matter in controversy is of the value of the jurisdictional amount" -- $3,000. However, while appellees are not aided in establishing the jurisdictional amount by the "allegation that [they] . . . sued on behalf of others similarly situated," [Footnote 2/20] the Court nevertheless holds that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy in "the value of the aggregate rights of all members" (including the more than 1,000 who have not appeared in person) to combine and fix prices in Florida.
the jurisdictional amount], because [such aggregation] . . . is necessarily only applicable to those class actions in which several claimants to a fund are joined as plaintiffs asserting common and undivided rights therein. [Footnote 2/21]"
"separate and distinct demands . . . [united] for convenience and economy in a single suit, [and] it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount. [Footnote 2/27]"
A common desire to disregard a State law cannot serve as a common and undivided interest for purposes of Federal jurisdiction; [Footnote 2/29] otherwise, all who oppose such a law can aggregate the values of their alleged individual rights so to disregard the law, in order that they may escape the courts of a State and bring its law before a federal court. And the fact that a State law inflicts pecuniary loss upon members of a nonprofit association because of their membership does not permit aggregation of the members' pecuniary interests as a basis for attack upon the law in a federal court by some members "on behalf and with the authority of all." [Footnote 2/30] Here, the individual members have made no showing of what they as individuals have at stake -- or of what all the members as a class stand to lose by virtue of the Florida law.
to fix prices, and the value of that right must determine the amount in controversy. [Footnote 2/32] That right was the object which appellees' bill for injunction sought to protect from allegedly unconstitutional interference. [Footnote 2/33] Yet there is no evidence at all in the record from which even an inference can be drawn as to the amount, if any, individual appellees or other members might lose in Florida by selling or licensing their copyrighted articles individually (which the law permits), instead of fixing prices by monopolistic combination (which the law prohibits). No showing was made that appellees ever have made or ever will make any profit from the operations of the Society in Florida. As stated by the majority opinion, the record discloses that the business of the Society in the entire United States and sixteen foreign countries is a profitable one. But we cannot assume from this that its Florida operations are, as a unit, profitable. In fact, the record shows only that the entire Society had sixty thousand dollars' worth of contracts in Florida in 1936. We are not told what ratable share of this sixty thousand dollars would come to any individual in the division of the entire amount among the forty-five thousand odd members affiliated with the Society (in America and abroad). Each individual member's gross income from Florida might be less than $1.50 per year.
income from the Society will actually be increased when the unprofitable Florida operations cease because of the statute. Measuring the amount in controversy on the above theory, jurisdiction might be obtained by a federal court to enforce rights of a value far less than the jurisdictional $3,000 required by Congress. For illustration, a statute might prohibit parking of automobiles on certain city streets; an automobile owner assailing the law might be admitted to the jurisdiction of the federal court by alleging that it would cost him more than three thousand dollars to purchase a parking lot in which to park off the streets of the prohibited area. He would thus "comply" with the statute, and abandon the streets in obedience to it. [Footnote 2/34] I do not believe that jurisdiction of a federal court can be rested on measurements of the imagined cost of what a complainant conceivably could, but certainly would never, do as an alternative to action forbidden by statute.
The statutory monetary standard is precise, and the amount in controversy therefore cannot be conjectural.
"It is impossible to foresee into what mazes of speculation and conjecture we may not be led by a departure from the simplicity of the statutory provision."
"Accordingly, this court has uniformly been strict to adhere to and enforce it. [Footnote 2/35] "
Without proof of the amount each appellee or member has in issue, how can the "aggregate amount" be fixed at any figure?
Rigid enforcement of the jurisdictional requirement will limit the interference of federal courts in State legislation, and will accord with the policy of Congress in narrowing the jurisdiction of federal courts by successive increases in the jurisdictional amount. [Footnote 2/36] "The policy of the statute calls for its strict construction." [Footnote 2/37] Since no individual complainant has established that he has the statutory jurisdictional amount in controversy, to rest jurisdiction of a federal court on no more than the unified desire of many complainants to violate a State statute prohibiting monopolistic price-fixing does constitute a "novel, if not unique" and "grave," judicial departure from the jurisdictional requirement fixed by Congress.
the injunction may affect. [Footnote 2/38]"
The injunction here was not granted upon conditions that would protect the interests of all who might be affected by it. It neither ordered the monopoly tribute exacted by appellees to be paid into court during suspension of the Florida statute nor required a bond for the benefit of, and adequate to indemnify, those who must pay this tribute until the court permits the statute to go into effect.
Nevertheless, this Court now refuses to correct the grossly unjust failure to protect those who may suffer irreparable injury from the suspension of the Florida law, on the ground that "[n]o objection appears as to the adequacy of the bond or the other terms of the injunction. These remain under the control of the lower court." However, the lower court has already exercised its control resulting in manifestly injurious error apparent on the record. [Footnote 2/39] And as, "upon this appeal in equity, the whole case is before us, we can render such decree as under all the circumstances may be proper." [Footnote 2/40] Litigation is not a game in which justice can be awarded only to the alert and fastidious objector, particularly when -- as here -- a court suspends statutory rights of members of the public who, not being in court, have no opportunity to object. The injustice to the public apparent on this record violates the rudimentary principles of equity and fair play. We should neither condone nor permit it.
terms, should not benefit by the suspension in the event the law is later held constitutional. Otherwise, a judicially granted period of immunity will reward litigants who unsuccessfully assail the constitutionality of legislation. Seemingly, the time has arrived when, despite our constitutional system of government, no State law can become effective until a federal court hears evidence on its constitutionality. The courts -- responsible for this fundamental change -- should at least protect citizens of an enacting State from disobedience to a State law permitted by an erroneous or improvident interlocutory injunction.
Cf. Borden's Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 194, 293 U. S. 203; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 275 U. S. 440, 275 U. S. 447; Public Service Commission v. Great Northern Utilities Co., 289 U. S. 130, 289 U. S. 136-137.
Borden's Co. v. Baldwin, supra, 293 U. S. 203.
Cf. Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 199 U. S. 401, 199 U. S. 412.
Gilchrist v. Interborough Co., 279 U. S. 159, 279 U. S. 207; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240, 271 U. S. 243-244; cf. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28, 177 U. S. 43, and see Clark, Brandeis, JJ., dissenting, Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & H. Traction Co., 245 U. S. 446, 245 U. S. 461.
28 U.S.C. § 41; c. 726, 50 Stat. 738, 48 Stat. 775; 47 Stat. 70; 43 Stat. 938; 36 Stat. 1162, amended 37 Stat. 1013.
Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184, 191 U. S. 194.
"If the federal court could thus prohibit the law officer of the state from representing it in a suit brought in the state court, why might not the bill in the federal court be so amended that that court could reach all the district attorneys in Minnesota, and forbid them from bringing to the attention of grand juries and the state courts violations of the state act . . . ?"
His apprehensive prophecy has more than come true in the present case.
Cf. Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227, 212 U. S. 262, aff'g 148 F. 939; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 130 U. S. 412; McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co., 152 F. 321; Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 50 F. 493; American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klotz, 44 F. 721; 1 Pom.Equity Juris. (3rd Ed.) § 402.
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 212 U. S. 86, 212 U. S. 107.
"There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which precludes a state from adopting and enforcing [statutes which secure competition and preclude combinations which tend to defeat it]. . . . To so decide would be stepping backwards."
International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 234 U. S. 209. See Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 U. S. 412, 301 U. S. 425-426; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 291 U. S. 529; Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U. S. 342, 240 U. S. 366-367.
National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U. S. 115, 197 U. S. 129; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., supra, 199 U. S. 411.
Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., 302 U. S. 253, 302 U. S. 260-261.
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U. S. 208.
Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 226 U. S. 161.
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), supra, 212 U. S. 108.
Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., supra, 199 U. S. 411; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, supra, 226 U. S. 160. "A Legislature may hit at an abuse which it has found, even though it has failed to strike at another." United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 304 U. S. 151.
Cf. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, Harlan, J., dissenting, 209 U. S. 168-204, and see Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 172 U. S. 528-530; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 123 U. S. 496-497, 123 U. S. 505.
Polk Co. v. Glover, 305 U. S. 5.
Borden's Co. v. Baldwin, supra, 293 U. S. 210.
See dissent, McCart v. Indianapolis Water Co., 302 U. S. 419, 302 U. S. 435, and note.
Lion Bonding Co. v. Karatz, 262 U. S. 77, 262 U. S. 86.
Eberhard v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 241 F. 353, 356, referred to with apparent approval in Lion Bonding Co. v. Karatz, supra.
Smith v. Swormstedt, 16 How. 288.
Beatty v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. 566.
Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3, but see Chapman v. Handley, 151 U. S. 443.
Troy Bank v. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 222 U. S. 41.
Id., 222 U. S. 40.
Alaska Packers v. Pillsbury, 301 U. S. 174, 301 U. S. 177; Christopher v. Brusselback, 302 U. S. 500, 302 U. S. 505; see KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269, 299 U. S. 279.
Pope v. Blanton, 10 F.Supp. 15, 18, dismissed per curiam for lack of requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy, 299 U.S. 521; Gavica v. Donaugh, 93 F.2d 173.
Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621. The complaint appears in the original records of this Court, No. 411, Oct. Term 1915. Cf. Robbins v. Western Auto Ins. Co., 4 F.2d 249, cert. denied, 268 U.S. 698; Woods v. Thompson, 14 F.2d 951, and Illinois Bankers' Life Assn. v. Farris, 21 F.2d 1014, cert. denied, 276 U.S. 621.
Cf. Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., supra, 199 U. S. 412.
Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, 165 U. S. 114-115.
Cf. Glenwood Lt. Co. v. Mutual Light Co., 239 U. S. 121, 239 U. S. 125-126; KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269, 299 U. S. 277.
"Cost of compliance" with an assailed legislative act may be considered the measure of the amount in controversy when a right of complainant is regulated, or where he is required to take affirmative action. Cf., Kroger Grocery Co. v. Lutz, 299 U. S. 300, 299 U. S. 301; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 298 U. S. 181. But appellees have not been required to take any affirmative steps, nor are they permitted to fix prices on condition that they "comply" with regulations. The fixing of prices through combinations has been prohibited. Obviously, appellees cannot be prohibited from doing that which they may also do by "complying" with the statute.
Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578, 106 U. S. 581.
See Healy v. Ratta, 292 U. S. 263, 292 U. S. 270.
Inland Steel Co. v. United States, 306 U. S. 153.
See Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U. S. 217, 285 U. S. 222; United States v. Tennessee & Coosa R. Co., 176 U. S. 242, 176 U. S. 256; Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, 27, paragraph 6; cf. Mabler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 264 U. S. 45.
United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 184 U. S. 416, 184 U. S. 423; Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & H. Traction Co., supra, 245 U. S. 454; Ridings v. Johnson, 128 U. S. 212, 128 U. S. 218; cf. Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 600, 294 U. S. 607.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 266
 § 1
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 41
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 402
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.