CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


KENNINGTON V. PALMER, 255 U. S. 100 (1921)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 255 U. S. 100 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U.S. 100 (1921)

Kennington v. Palmer

No. 37

Argued October 19, 20, 1920

Decided February 28, 1921

255 U.S. 100

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Syllabus

1. Decided, as to the unconstitutionality of part of the Food Control Act, upon the authority of United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., ante, 255 U. S. 81.

2. Equity will enjoin criminal prosecutions threatened under a void statute, the legal remedy being inadequate.

Reversed.

Bill to enjoin criminal prosecutions against dealers in wearing apparel under § 4 of the Food Control Act.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellants, dealers in wearing apparel in the City of Jackson, Mississippi, filed their bill in the court below against the Attorney General and subordinates, charged by him with administrative duties under § 4 of the Lever chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 255 U. S. 101

Act to enjoin the enforcement against them of provisions of that section. Their right to relief was based upon averments as to the unconstitutionality of the assailed provisions of the section not only in substance upon the contentions which we have this day considered and disposed of in the Cohen Grocery Co. case, ante, 255 U. S. 81, but upon other grounds as well.

Without passing upon the question of constitutionality, the court dismissed the bill for the reason that the complainants had an adequate remedy at law, and the correctness of the decree of dismissal is the question now before us on direct appeal.

As it is no longer open to deny that the averments of unconstitutionality which were relied upon, if well founded, justified equitable relief under the bill, * and because the opinion in the Cohen case has conclusively settled that they were well founded, it follows that the court below was wrong, and its decree must be and it is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE PITNEY and MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS concur in the result.

MR. JUSTICE DAY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

* Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146; Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264; Ft. Smith & Western R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED