Search Supreme Court Cases


U.S. Supreme Court

Ex Parte Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 280 U.S. 142 (1929)

Ex Parte Northern Pacific Railway Company

No. 21, Original

Return to rule presented November 25, 1929

Decided December 2, 1929

280 U.S. 142


In a suit in the district court to restrain state officers, by interlocutory and permanent injunctions, from enforcing an order affecting railway rates upon the ground that the order conflicts with the federal Constitution and laws, when the plaintiffs apply for an interlocutory injunction on that ground and the district judge grants a temporary restraining order to be effective until such application shall be determined, it is his duty under Jud.Code, § 266 immediately to call two other judges, one of whom shall be a circuit justice or a circuit judge, to assist him in hearing and determining such application, and neither he nor another district judge, in the presence of such application and when it is being pressed, has jurisdiction, sitting alone, to entertain a motion by the defense to dissolve the temporary restraining order or a motion by the defense to dismiss the bill, or jurisdiction to dismiss the bill on the merits. P. 280 U. S. 144.

Petitions for a rule directing the Honorable George M. Bourquin and the Honorable Charles N. Pray, judges of the district court for the District of Montana, and the

Page 280 U. S. 143

district court for that District, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to set aside a decree dismissing the petitioners' bill of complaint, and further directing Judge Pray to call in two other judges to assist him to hear and determine petitioners' application for an interlocutory injunction. The case was heard on the original and supplemental petitions and the return to a rule to show cause issued to the two judges. The rule is made absolute.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: EX PARTE NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 280 U. S. 142 (1929)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.