¡L Courts (§ 407*) — Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeals — Decisions Reviewable — Interlocutory Order Granting Injunction.

Under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 7, 26 Stat. 828 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 550), as amended by Act April 14, 1906, c. 1627, 34 Stat. 316 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 220), an appeal lies from an interlocutory order of a Circuit or District Court granting an injunction “in any cause” to the Circuit Court of Appeals, whether or not an appeal would lie to such court from the final decree therein.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 1100; Dec. Dig. § 407*

Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeals in general, see notes to Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 1C. C. A. 6; United States Freehold Land Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 32 C. C. A. 475.]

2. Courts (§ 407*) — Circuit Courts of Appeals — Appeal from Order Granting Injunction — Scope and Extent of Review.

On an appeal from an interlocutory order of a Circuit Court granting an injunction, the Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Circuit Court had jurisdiction 'of the case by reason of the presence or absence of a constitutional question.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 1100; Dec. Dig. § 407.*]

S. Courts (§ 299*) — Jurisdiction of Federal Courts — Federal Question.

It must appear from the pleadings, by a statement in legal and logical form, that a suit is one which does really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy as to a right which depends on the construction of the Constihition or some law or treaty of the United States, in order to confer jurisdiction on a Circuit Court on that ground.

[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 841; Dec. Dig. § 299.*]

4. Constitutional Law (§f 206, 251*) — Prohibition of Federal Constitution-Laws of State — Municipal Ordinances.

A municipal ordinance, passed pursuant to the authority of the state, which abridges the i>rivileges or immunities of the citizen or deprives a person of property without due process of law, may be an act of the state prohibited by the federal Constitution, but to come within such prohibition the ordinance must, by implication at least, express the will of the state.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 625-648. 726, 727: Dec. Dig. §§ 206, 251.*]

5. Constitutional Law (§ 280*) — Courts (§ 282*) — Jurisdiction of Federal Court — Federal Question.

Where a franchise to construct and operate a street railroad on certain streets was granted to complainant by an ordinance which expressly provided that the grant was not exclusive, and reserved the right to the city to grant oilier franchises in the same streets, or to itself construct and operate railways thereon, a subsequent ordinance, granting a similar franchise to another company, covering in part the same streets, but expressly providing that, before tracks should be laid in any location where any person or company would be entitled to compensation for damages occasioned thereby, such damages should be ascertained and settled according to law, was not in violation of the federal Constitution as depriving complainant of its property without due process of law, and a bill setting out such facts in a suit to enjoin the graptee from proceeding under tlie ordinance does not state a case within the jurisdiction of a federal court as involving a real and substantial' controversy depending upon the construction of the Constitution.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 877-890; Dec. Dig. § 280;* Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824; Dec. Dig. § 282,]

6. Courts (§ 282*) — Jurisdiction of Federal Courts — Federal Question. ■

A suit to enjoin the enforcement of a municipal ordinance on the ground that it will deprive complainant of its property without due process of law is not within the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States as involving a constitutional question, where the state Constitution contains a similar prohibition, and the ordinance, if invalid under one, is equally so under the other; the rule being that in such cases the remedy must be first sought in the state courts.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824; Dec. Dig. § 282.*

Jurisdiction in cases involving federal question, see notes to Bailey v.

• Mosher, 11 C. C. A. 308: Montana Ore-Purchasing Co. v. Boston & M. Consol. Copper & Silver Mining Co., 35 C. C. A. 7.]