WEST INDIA FRUIT & STEAMSHIP CO. v. SEATRAIN LINES

No. 81, Docket 21126.

170 F.2d 775 (1948)

WEST INDIA FRUIT & STEAMSHIP CO., Inc., et al. v. SEATRAIN LINES, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

November 5, 1948.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rathbone, Perry, Kelley & Drye, of New York City (Nicholas Kelley and T. R. Iserman, both of New York City, Arthur L. Winn, Jr., of Washington, D. C., Frank H. Heiss and Edward K. Bachman, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, of New York City (Roscoe H. Hupper, John L. Galey, and Norman M. Barron, all of New York City, and William Radner, Odell Kominers, and Henry G. Fischer, all of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee West India Fruit & Steamship Co., Inc.

Paul D. Page, Jr., and George F. Galland, both of Washington, D. C., for United States Maritime Commission.

Hirsh, Shalleck, Krakower & Gelwan, of New York City, for intervenor Port of Palm Beach District.

Bleakley, Platt, Gilchrist & Walker, of New York City, for intervenor Trustees of Florida East Coast Ry. Co.

Purrington & McConnell, of New York City, for intervenor Empresa Naviera de Cuba, S. A.

Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, of New York City, and Terriberry, Young, Rault & Carroll, of New Orleans, La., for intervenor Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.

Kreutzer, Heller & Selman, of New York City, for intervenor J. M. McCauley & Son.

Winn, Graubard & Shapiro, of New York City, for intervenor Port Commission of City of Beaumont, Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, etc.

Bernstein, Weiss, Tomson, Hammer & Parter, of New York City (Michael C. Bernstein and Eugene M. Parter, both of New York City, of counsel), for intervenor Piowatz-Bergart Co., Inc.

Battle, Levy, Fowler & Neaman, of New York City, for intervenor, Dakota Chief Sales Co.

John P. McGrath, of New York City (Seymour Quel and Charles F. Preusse, both of New York City, of counsel), for intervenor City of New York.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.


FRANK, Circuit Judge.

1. Defendant, Seatrain, contends that the district court lacked power to issue an injunction in aid of the Commission, regardless of the facts. We cannot agree, especially as the Commission has intervened as a party plaintiff. See California v. United States, 320 U.S. 577, 584, 585, 64 S.Ct. 352, 88 L.Ed. 322; F.R.C.P. 24(b) as recently amended; S. E. C. v. U. S. Realty...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases