Western Fruit Growers, Inc. v. United States

The complaint herein is entitled “For Injunction to Enforce and to Prevent Violation of Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937” and alleges that it is a proceeding brought under Section 8a(6) 1 of the said Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq., and that its purpose is to enforce the provisions of Order No. 2 of the Secretary of Agriculture regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the States of California and Arizona, and to prevent and restrain the defendants from handling oranges in current of interstate commerce in violation of the provisions of said order.

It is alleged that the defendants Western Fruit Growers, Inc.; Orange Belt Fruit Distributors, Inc.; Edwards Fruit Co., Inc.; California Fruit Distributors; United Citrus Growers, Inc.; Shippers Sales Corporation; Pioneer Citrus Distributors; American Fruit Growers, Inc.; Associated Anaheim Growers, Inc.; Green and Gold Groves, Inc.; Fred W. Krinard and Russell G. Krinard, copartners; Lloyd A. Evans, Ernest E. Evans and Roy E. Evans, co-partners; B. C. Rooke; Frank Belmont and E. T. Wall are all shippers of oranges in interstate and foreign commerce. Seven of the above…

(dissenting in part).

This appeal is from two orders of the District Court in an action by appellee against appellants under § 8a of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 608a (1) an order which, on September 28, 1940, denied appellants’ motion to dismiss appellee’s complaint and (2) an order which, on October 5, 1940, granted a temporary injunction restraining (a) all the appellants from further prosecuting an action theretofore brought by them in a State court of California and (b) 1 some of the appellants from violating an order issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under § 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 608c.

This court’s decision dismisses so much of the appeal as relates to the order of September 28, 1940, affirms so much of the order of October 5, 1940, as relates to part (a) of the temporary injunction and reverses so much thereof as relates to part (b). I concur in the dismissal and in the affirmance, but dissent from the reversal for the following reasons:

The granting or refusal of the temporary injunction — including, of course, part (b) thereof — rested in the District Court’s discretion, the exercise of which, in the ab *388 sence of…