Case Name: CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. NEW AMSTERDAM GAS CO. et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1909-02-05
Citations: 167 F. 144
Docket Number: 
Parties: CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. NEW AMSTERDAM GAS CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 167
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. NEW AMSTERDAM GAS CO. et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
February 5, 1909.)
Injunction (§ 163 ) — Preliminary Injunction — Vacation.
Laws N. Y. 1906, p. 235, c. 125, limited the price of gas in the borough of Manhattan to 80 cents per 1,000 feet, and provided that any corporation or person violating the act should forfeit $1,000 for each offense. The act also contained certain provisions with reference to pressures. The constitutionality of the act having been questioned, a preliminary injunction was granted restraining prosecution of the gas company by repeated actions for penalties and failure to conform to pressure provisions and for asking consumers to pay a higher rate. Held that, the Supreme Court having held that the provisions as to pressures and penalties were in violation of the federal Constitution, the purpose of the injunction was fulfilled, and it should therefore be vacated.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 366; Dec. Dig. § T63.*] , ■
In Equity. On motion to vacate preliminary injunction.
Joline, Larkin & Rathbone, for complainants.
Cortlandt Betts, for defendant New Amsterdam Gas Co.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
The nature and extent of this preliminary injunction have been so often misstated, even quite'recently by an eminent jurist, that it may be appropriate to refer to Consolidated Gas Co. v. Mayer, 146 Fed. 151, 155 (June 8, 1906), for a correct statement of its exact terms. It enjoined until final hearing the prosecution of the gas company by'repeated actions for pénalties for failure to conform to pressure provisions and for asking consumers to pay at the $1 rate. No one was constrained to pay at that rate unless he chose to do so. The Supreme Court has held that these provisions as to pressures and penalties are in violation of the Constitution of the United States. That being so, no injunction is needed to protect any rights of the company, since the state courts are quite as_careful-as are the federal courts to follow and administer the provisions of that Constitution. No prosecution to enforce unconstitutional penalties need be apprehended.
The injunction is vacated, but, in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court, without prejudice to any further action which the gas company may be advised to take. A similar disposition will be made of the injunctions in the other cases. Order to be settled on two days' notice.