Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 (1940)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 309 U.S. 304, click here.

Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co.

No. 270

Argued January 12, 1940
Decided February 26, 1940
309 U.S. 310

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Syllabus

Canners of citrus fruits operating in Florida, some of them domiciled in other States, sued to enjoin an official from enforcing an order made under color of a Florida statute and purporting to fix the price to be paid the grower for grapefruit, the bill alleging unconstitutionality of the statute, invalidity of the order for failure to comply with the statutory requirements, and threat of irreparable injury.

Held:

1. That, upon application under Jud.Code § 266, heard upon the bill, affidavits, and other evidence, the question before the District Court was not whether the Act was constitutional or unconstitutional, nor whether there had been compliance with its requirements, if valid, but was whether the showing made raised serious questions, under the federal Constitution and the state law, and disclosed that enforcement of the Act, pending final hearing, would inflict irreparable damages upon the complainants. P. 316.

The court should have confined itself to those issues. Expressions of opinion on the ultimate merits were premature.

2. It is of the highest importance to a proper review in the granting or refusing of a preliminary injunction that there be explicit findings of fact, in compliance with § 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. P. 316.

3. The question whether the bill failed to state facts sufficient to raise a substantial question as to the constitutional validity of the statute could have been raised for prompt decision by motion to dismiss. P. 317.

4. The bill raises questions of the validity of the statute, and as to whether it has ever been put in operation in accordance with its terms, that preclude a judgment of dismissal. P. 318.

5. The mere fact that the Act fixes prices is, in itself, insufficient to invalidate it, and allegation of that fact does not raise substantial federal questions. P. 318.

6. Nonresident plaintiffs may be entitled to maintain the suit before one District Judge upon the ground that the conditions of the statute were not officially complied with, even though it be found that there is no substance in the constitutional questions presented. P. 318.

28 F.Supp. 44 reversed.

Appeal from an interlocutory decree of injunction.