Case Name: HINES, Director General of Railroads, et al. v. ATLANTIC REFINING CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1920-02-16
Citations: 265 F. 839
Docket Number: No. 1731
Parties: HINES, Director General of Railroads, et al. v. ATLANTIC REFINING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 839–839

Head Matter:
HINES, Director General of Railroads, et al. v. ATLANTIC REFINING CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
February 16, 1920.)
No. 1731.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg; Alston G. Dayton, Judge.
Suit in equity by the Atlantic Refining Company against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and J. W. Root, Superintendent. From an order granting a preliminary injunction, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
George M. Hoffheimer, of Clarksburg, W. Va. (J0. Bryan Templeman, of Clarksburg, W. Va., on the brief), for ajipellants.
¡VI. H. Willis, of New Martinsville, W. Va., and Francis Shrink Brown, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Yale L. Sehekter, of Philadelphia, Pa., J. Merrill Wright, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Brown & Williams, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge.
This case arose upon a bill in equity by the Atlantic Refining Company, appellee, to restrain the threatened action of Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, to discontinue service to and from the siding at the plant of the Atlantic Refining Company at Sisfcersvllle, W. Va. It was alleged that such threatened action would result in irreparable and grave loss to appellee. Injunction affidavits were filed by both parties. After due consideration the court below issued a preliminary injunction.
The case comes here on appeal from the order in question. This suit and the suit of Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., et al. v. Henaghan & Hanlon, involve the same questions and were argued together. This court having filed an opinion in the other case (265 Fed. 831), wherein the court below was affirmed, adopts the same as its opinion in this suit.
The order of the lower court, granting the preliminary injunction, is therefore affirmed.
WOODS, Circuit Judge, dissents.