*1 BUCK GENERAL, ATTORNEY GIBBS, et al. et al. April January 10, 1939. Decided Argued
No. 276. *2 Norwood, Tyrus A. Messrs. Attorney Assistant Gen- Boggs, with Florida, and Luden H. Messrs. whom eral of Gibbs, George Cowper Andrew General, Attorney W. Bennett were brief, appellants. for on J. Haight, G. whom Frank
Mr. Messrs. Thomas. Frohlich, Finkelstein, D. Herman Wideman, Louis appellees. on the Manley brief, P. Caldwell were Reed opinion Mr. delivered the Court. Justice frofn the order of appeal three-judge This is an' court complaint fail- refusing dismiss a bill of on motion for federal equity facts sufficient show or ure set out action, or to constitute a cause of jurisdiction, grant- interlocutory injunction against enforcement ing an at combinations fixing price of a Florida aimed statute rendering privately publicly for-the privilege compositions. 266, Jud. § musical copyrighted profit Code. Attorney General and various
The appellant, State of Florida Attorneys, are officers State *3 The appellees, enforcement of act. charged with the the Com- below, Society the American of complainants Publishers, unincorporated and asso- Authors posers, New under the laws of the of ciation State organized cor- Society; of various Buck as York; president Gene of a number musical compositions; porations publishing music; and composers copyrighted authors several and suit , and authors. This composers of kin of deceased next and complainants on behalf themselves brought too Society, of the similarly situated, others members them join plaintiffs it to as practicable make numerous to general interest.1 and of common in a matter is the Copyright Act rights given One of copyrighted composi- musical perform right exclusive alleges complaint The bill of profit.2 for in public tions recog- had refused to compositions musical users Equity Rule C. 4, 1909, (e), March c. Stat. Act of § (e). 1§ royalties public for statutory right and to pay nize and authors, composers and that profit, for performances their ex- enforce unable, individually, were publishers suing detecting and because of the right expense clusive The throughout the United States. infringement for performance founded in 1914' to Society was license protect otherwise profit music copyrighted organiza- was directed at The state statute copyrights. on June Society like and became effective tions here, the statute makes important far as is 1937.3 So musical of copyrighted composi- unlawful for owners any association or corporation, into tions to combine fix “for use or rendition license fees entity other musical' composi- vocal or instrumental copyrighted performance profit,” or when private public tions for “a substan- the members of constitute the.combination firms within persons, corporations number of the tial musical de- owning copyrights. It United States” monopoly, price- an unlawful clares the combination and the collection of license trade, in restraint fixing illegal. combination by the contracts fees all- contrary as the Con- bill attacked statute and the United States consti- of the stitution and.laws specifically, urged 'it Florida. More tution of Copyright Act upon rights given by the impinged law rights without complainants of due 1909, deprived equal protection process of law and without impaired obligation already of contracts exe- laws, an ex law. cuted, operated post facto *4 allegation There was a formal that matter in con- the troversy $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs. exceeded In addition, alleged the bill three publishers that' the copyrights owned a in $1,000,000 of value excess of while each complainants of the individual copyrights owned I, Gen. Fla. Laws Yol. c. 17807. $100,000; worth in it excess that would cost each indi- $10,000 agency vidual more than to create an in Florida protect to against infringement by himself unauthorized public performances for to profit, licenses and to issue on accuracy reported; check uses that fees col- $59,306.81 in in lected 1936 Florida amounted to and that expected similar sums were in the future; and that in publishers 1936 each of the three received more than Society $50,000 from and each individual more than $5,000.
A temporary injunction motion was made on February 7, 1938, same day bill was filed. Vo- presented support luminous affidavits were substantiate, They motion. tend allegations, complaint on the the copyrights value of the in- Society. publisher deposed from Each come that $50,000 from had received more than Society Society contract with the its had a value excess fix prices composition and that $200,000, on each require in Florida would expenditure each use an $25,000.. The more than affidavits of the individuals showed annual incomes to them from the Society of $3,000 $9,000; the Society contracts which affiants in the valued thousands of dollars and expense, as high $5,000 in one instance, comply with the requirements of the Florida statute.
On March 3, 1938, moved to appellants dismiss on grounds: jurisdictional (1) several absence of amount; (2) failure to action; cause of (3) equity want of objections and other strongly pressed at time. The district granted court an interlocutory injunction and denied motion to dismiss the bill. It thought, great damage would result the injunction unless is- grave sued and that there doubt of the constitu- tionality findings of the act. Its of fact and conclu- of law sions were filed about a month half and a after the *5 per It “the curiam decision. found that matter in con- troversy $3,000 exceeds interest and exclusive of costs.”
Federal Jurisdiction. —The raised in issue was the lower by court a motion to dismiss on the that it ground affirm- “from atively appears allegations the of the bill . . . jurisdictional that amount $3,000.00 the of ... is not ... it appears involved that that the brought suit is for the benefit of the of' Society members the American of Composers, Authors and . Publishers . . and it does appear not that affirmatively the loss of member any society said due to enforcement challenged of [the would to the . necessary jurisdictional amount . . act] jurisdictional amount.” Other averments the motion Society cannot suffer loss from the legislation it affirmatively because appears that the So- ciety proceeds licensing divides all its between its “therefore, members and affiliates and the loss, if any, sustained due to the enforcement of said Florida laws would fall on the members of Society, and not on the Society Finally itself.” the motion out sets the lack of jurisdiction because affirmatively appears from the allegations bill jurisdictional amount plaintiffs involved “because the' have not shown the damage extent loss or they would suffer réason of the enforcement of said State law, compared as they the amount profit would make the non-en- of said law.” As the form of the forcement motion on jurisdiction admitted the bill’s statements, it was allegations submitted on the production without any evidence. testing
This jurisdiction method of properly raises the question. No issue is as the standing made Society or its members to sue. The basis of the at- tack is that is a lack there allegations the essential n , matter value controversy. As there is no statutory procedure direction for ju- upon issue of
risdiction, mode of its determination left to the trial court.4 Both complainants and defendants were content upon to rest the bill and motion. *6 bill alleges
The the in dispute value of matter the jurisdictional exceeds amount. Such general the a alle gation when not traversed is sufficient, quali unless it is by so from fied which detract it that court the must others sponte dismiss sua or on In defendants’ this motion.5 instance, in the allegation is, by the lan effect, traversed of guage plaintiff motion which asserts has the no equal shown loss from enforcement to the jurisdictional other allegations By amount. No are denied. this method the set in the bill left un of. attack facts out are aceept challenged the court to as true without for further showing by The proof. burden the admitted facts that jurisdiction the federal has the court rests com upon plainants. If there were doubt of the faith of good jus for their might the court have called allegations, the unchallenged facts, by In view tification evidence.6 the established, if it jurisdiction adequately be will federal matter any member, party, who a that for appears amount,7 jurisdictional the value controversy is of repre the members of all aggregate if to the or, value. controversy is of that matter suit, the sentative with a association unincorporated Society, This au- leading than a-thousand membership more by of music, received publishers has composers and thors, which five-year period for possesses, assignment and right “exclusive involved, here covers time 121; v. 115, 120, McNutt General Rymer, 169 U. S. v. Wetmore v. KVOS, Associ 178, Inc. 298 U. S. Corp., Acceptance Motors 269, 278 Press, 299 U. S. . ated 269, 277; 299 U. S. Press, McNutt v. KVOS, Inc. Associated 298 U. S. p., Acceptance Motors General Cor 298 U. S. Acceptance Corp., Motors General McNutt 241 — 242. Clark Co., Press American Grosjean S. 583. Inc., Gray, Paul compositions musical owned perform profit”
publicly Society by are issued Licenses by members. its public performance profit” “for the in Florida users expenses After payment of compositions. of these re- foreign associates, royalties rights for similar from receipts licenses reserves, of certain tention by classifica- in amounts and among divided members and the Board of association tions fixed the articles itself Society protect The undertakes Directors. to it. piracies rights assigned its members legisla- challenged Society, in the has, absence objec- to other now consideration giving tion and without right to license legality organization, as to the of its tions statute. may injuriously which affected florida own- from limited flows right Whether this to license its of members by authority its copyrights ership unnecessary to decide immaterial here. We find *7 standing has association unincorporated whether this controversy in amount sue and confine our decision to the Society the defendants. the and between of the member's owners and individual Members, copyright both corporate Théy repre- lyrics, plaintiffs. of are music and composers copy- As the own the all other members. members sent Society to the of assignment the less the limited rights, in the for and public performance profit, of share right mandatory under the arti- through distribution earnings they by way not of dividends, and cles association of These are real to the action.8 members parties proper XV, § association, follows: articles-of reads as 1, of the Article Royalties — n “Apportionment of by royalties Society license fees collected the and All “Section by the Board Directors to time-as ordered of from time shall be provided, members, however: among its distributed ' (cid:127) “ operation Society of expenses of the and sums (a) That all shall be foreign affiliated Societies deducted therefrom payable to duly paid; and and Directors, two-thirds “(b) That Board vote those the meeting may -add to the regular Reserve present Fund at in parties interest. interposition Because of the they statute cannot in combination production license and in collect fees Florida. Unless the relief sought, in- statute, validation of the is obtained, can- members not conduct their through business the medium of the Society. They a common have and undivided interest in in in controversy matter class suit.9 this
The essential in matter controversy here is right in members, association through the Society, con- duct licensing public the business of performance for profit copyrights. their combining This method of for is Florida interdicted It contracts statute. is not question regulation of taxation or prohibition. but Un- circumstances, der such jurisdiction on the issue is the right value this to conduct the business free of the prohibition the statute.10 To determine the value right the District Court had the admitted facts that more than three hundred contracts in expiring 1940 were the Society between and users; the Florida existence sixty 1936 alone almost thousand dollars col- users, lected similar sums ex- were pected for the remainder of the term. While net shown, profit of Florida not the" busi- the business profitable.- Society, whole, of the as a The three ness than"$150,000 more yearly receive parties publisher total amount any portion exceeding available 10% distribution; ' remaining “(e) after such amount deduction That net (%) apportioned as follows: one-half thereof to distribution shall *8 members, Publisher’ among 'Music one-half be distributed the respectively.” 'Composer (%) among and Author’ members the 9 Co., 39; Troy & Shields 222 v. Bank Whitehead v. U. S. Cf. Thomas, 3. 17 How. 10 114; Donald, cf. Hunt v. New York Cot Scott v. 165 U. Ry. Co., McNeil v. Southern 322, 334; Exchange, 205 U. S. ton Co., 205; N. R. Louisville & U. S. Bitterman 543; S.U. Banton, S. 140. Packard v. more than $5,000 per year
individuals
each. The cost of
compliance
requirements
with its
also
evidence
of the
is
right
value
the
of freedom
act.11 The com-
from
than
Society, allege
other
the
without
plainants,
traverse
to each
providing individually
the cost
one of
provided by
Florida
now
Society
services
each
member would
$10,000.
exceed
Whether
annu-
this is
ally,
length
for the
agreement
or1for
other
some
term not
shown. From
facts,
finding
these
District
that the matter in controversy
Court
value
—the
aggregate rights
of all
members
conduct their
through
Society
business
$3,000 in value
—exceeds
fully supported.
v.
Acceptance Corp.12
McNutt
Motors
differs.
General
There the State of Indiana
passed
had
an act regulating,
prohibiting,
Acceptance
business of the
Corpora
right
tion. The
protection
which
was sought was the
right
to be
regulation.
free of
It was
be measured
to.
by the
if
loss,
any, following enforcement of regulation.
This was not
alleged
proved.
RVOS,
In
Inc. v. Associated
s,13
Pres
relief was
sought
enjoin alleged pirating,
radio,
news
furnished
the Associated Press to its
right
members. The
for which protection
sought
was
right
“the
conduct
those enterprises free of” interfer
ence. On the issue of
value
of this right, it was de
posed only that
the Associated Press received more than
$8,000 per month for
news
the territory
by.
served
broadcasting station and was in danger of losing the pay
(cid:127)
ments. The
Press
nonprofit
Associated
was a
corpora
tion, operated
purpose
without
profiting
its
services
and equitably
members
dividing the expenses
Packard v.
140;
264 U. S.
Banton,
Petroleum Exploration,
Inc.
Comm’n,
Public
215; Healy
Service
Ratta,
p.
Gallagher, post
Buck
among this not was was to members and shown. Neither its member to with- proved or threatened alleged draw payments. or to reduce its
Failure Cause motion to State a Action. —The of bill presents generally dismiss also the issue whether By states to constitute a of action. facts sufficient cause left to the submission of the motion issue was alleged Court in the bill. The elaboration on the facts supporting of facts, these contained affidavits for is objecting temporary injunction, to the motion a consideration, part affidavits are available these determining only record for the purpose injunction.14 grant propriety temporary a Whether answer, largely dismiss before refuse a motion to the bill for the court below.15 Where matter of discretion constitutionality state upon an attack makes sufficiently allegations by factual statute, supported “grave raise of the constitu- here, to doubts strong, as court, in the mind of trial of the Act” tionality to state a cause action dismiss for failure motion to the exercise This bill sets out that be denied. should n rights Act to control Copyright the Federal granted compositions profit prohibited performance statute; existing impaired; contracts by the recovery on extra compensation; taken without property due equal protection and the denied contracts man- 14th violated in Amendment process clauses ners, for violation penalties Drastic pleaded. specifically 5, 9. Glover, Company v. Polk 560; Wright Barnard, 233 F. Orleans, 273 F. v. New v. O’Keefe v. 329; Doherty 276 F. McDowell, Steel Car Co. Ralston Compare Co., F. Kansas Dump National Car S. 144-145; Illinois, Wisconsin U. Colorado, 102-103. States, United Co. Wilshire Oil provided.16 the act are manner extent challenged which the statute offends or complies applicable provisions of the Constitution will be *10 after final hearing findings.17 clearer findings . The interlocutory injunction here were on the motion for jurisdiction. on the issue of Assignments.
Other
assignmerts
other material
—The
of
interlocutory
specified
appeal
error
order
on
(1)
are addressed
to the lack of
equity
bill, (2)
exercise of discretion in ordering
in-
temporary
junction,
(3)
findings
to the lack of
before the order of
temporary injunction and (4) to the failure to strike from
allegations
the bill
as to certain sections which deal with
contract relations between the Society and users of the
compositions
musical
because these sections are not en-
forced
the state
We
briefly:
officers.
treat of them
(1) It
jurisdiction
is clear that
equitable
there is
to pre-
if
irreparable
vent
injury,
sections of the state statute
outlawing the Society raise issues of constitutionality.
heavy penalties
The
prohibition
violation and the
the issue of
or
licenses
collection of fees show the need
to protect complainants.18 (2) Upon the conclusion that
the motion to dismiss should be
no
overruled, there was
¿buse of
discretion
granting an interlocutory injunc-
damage
tion.19 The
before
judgment
final
from the en-
forcement of the
act as shown
be.
affidavits would
irreparable.
allegations
The
in the bill
of threats
enforcement and the declaration in the affidavit of the
either,
$5,000
imprisonment
$50
Fine
years
one to ten
and.
8,
Laws,
Fla.
1937,
Gen.
c. 17807.
§
17 Borden’s Farm
Baldwin,
Products
Co.
U. S.
211-213.
Polk Co. Glover,
Attorney State, General the officer willingness supervision of readiness and enforcement,20 sufficiently act,” “to es- any violations of said prosecute No from enforcement.21 danger tablish the immediate of the bond or the objection appears adequacy to the These remain under the injunction. other terms it would be ex- Ordinarily of the lower court. control injunction is considered pected temporary that where complainants against rights necessary protect un- officers, action unconstitutional allegedly follow with all conven- final order would statute, a der a trial court entered The order of the (3) speed. ient findings and conclusions 1938. The fact April 5, as- 1938, after the first May 17, not filed until law were the omission and out pointed had of errors signment original assignment allowed. appeal was after the comply *11 failure to upon relied had which error, subsequent to show amended was Rule Equity 70Yz made on error was assignment but compliance no were out of time. findings fact that account points to be in the statement taken objection The in in brief appellants’ appeal and on the upon relied practice Better dic- be urged. of errors specification and conclusions of finding of facts filing of tates or de- with the order contemporaneously before or' law however, to reverse the order useless, be would It cree. and remand the cause. injunction temporary granting now (4) would be order. injunction temporary objection it may fourth be said to the In answer constitutionality can more be like issue hearing. upon final disposed satisfactorily
Affirmed.
Laws,
c.
Fla. Gen.
§
197, 214-16; Cline v. Frink
Me. Justice of this case. eration or decision Black, dissenting. Me. Justice Florida’s enjoining suspending I decree believe the fixing be re- price1 should monopolistic law prohibiting versed because any doubt
(1) showing No has been made that casts price upon power monopolistic prohibit State’s fixing, to sustain
(2) Complainants failed (appellees here) showing $3,000.00 controversy, their burden of as. required by statute, below
(3) require The court failed bond or other conditions adequate to protect the people who Florida might injured injunction. Do
First. allegations of general unconstitutionality,1 similarly general affidavits and general findings by the trial court show that the Florida against statute monopo- price listic fixing is if “novel, unique” legis- lation, and “grave raise such questions” constitutional that a federal court should suspend the statute to permit complainants to continue exacting monopoly tribute from public until the court hears ^evidence?
The enjoined Attorney General and prosecuting at- torneys of Florida do not have, and expressly disclaim any duty to enforce the statute against appellees unless they fix combine to monopolistic prices. Therefore,
injunction, cannot rest upon alleged unconstitution- ality provisions of the statute other than those pro- *12 hibiting price monopolistic fixing. And allegations of the 1 Cf. Borden’s Co. v. Baldwin, 194, 293 U. 203; S. Aetna Ins. v. Co. 447; 440, Hyde, Public Service v. Comm’n Great Northern 130, 289 Co., 136, S.U. Utilities 137. 2 supra, 203. Co. v. Baldwin, Borden’s 80 only- raise of the statute attacking provisions other
bill to raise questions. If this can be said moot record all, ques- that “novel,” at “grave,” “unique” question fixing prohibit price power tion is whether a State has monopolies in restraint of trade. single point, ap Tf narrowed to this the issue is not officials from given enjoining to the state proval and have they duty have no to perform action which in the District Court.3 solemnly disclaimed both here and the Florida Su interpretation by In absence of or evi authoritative source Court, to what more preme meaning turn for the a federal may dence court official highest statute, than to the decision that, He has determined charged its enforcement? him attorneys under prosecuting far as he and the so compositions may license their concerned, appellees are in- and' may punish combine to detect they please, as provided may will, Florida at fringers operate Even fixing. they monopolistic price abandon only that all against price fixing, statutory prohibition to the desirable us, a more and more practice before dec previous dual form of keeping government, with our legislation,5 would Congressional isions,4 and the trend judicial interference until from federal refrain with an to define presented opportunity state courts “And pre statutory appellants. duties ..... do all state courts will what is in cases sumption 6 require.” of the United States and laws the constitution 3 Co., 401, S. 412. Insurance 199 U. Cf., Carroll v. Greenwich 4 Interborough Co., 159, 207; S. Fenner Gilchrist v. Texas, 243-4; cf., Oil Co. Boykin, 240, Waters-Pierce U. S. dissenting, Brandéis, JJ., Cincinnati 28, 43; Clark, and see U. S. Co., 446, Traction U. & H. v. Cincinnati 775, 47 Stat. 738, 48 Stat. 726, 50 Stat. C. c. 37 Stat. amended 36 Stat. 43 Stat. Co, 184, 194. Defiance, 191 U. S. Water Defiance *13 Judicially restraining these Florida officials from action they they which declare cannot and take, will not denies to Florida the respect traditional that has been accorded state officials this Court.7 according
Even to the comparatively judicial new formula here applied, only issue is whether “novel unique” “grave questions” . . constitutional are . raised these charge that state officials will perform duty their sole under the statute of Florida prosecuting appellees violations of the against mo- prohibitions nopolistic price fixing. Paraphrasing this formula, question here actually becomes: When complainants in a federal court of charge equity that a State has passed, and its officers enforce, against about mo- law nopolistic price fixing, is there so much doubt about the power the State to prohibit monopolistic price fixing operation of the law enjoined must be' and effect denied to it until evidence is heard by the Court?
Here, very both the bill upon injunction which the now approved granted affidavits of record establish beyond dispute appellees’ flagrant violation of fix by combining Florida law prices. This combina- apparently practically tion includes all (probably 95%) foreign copyright American and owners controlling rendi- Spielman Dodge, Motor Co. 89, 96; Cincinnati 7 See 295 U. S. Co., supra, Virginia v. Cincinnati & H. Traction West Virginia, City Ry. Co., Des Moines 89, 91; cf. 214 U. S. injunction strikingly This pertinent question makes parte Young, in Ex Harlan, dissenting, Justice (1908): prohibit “If the Federal thus court could the law officer of representing brought the State from it in a suit court, in the state why might bill in not the the Federal court be so amended that attorneys court could all the reach district in Minnesota and forbid grand juries from bringing them to the attention and the state ' apprehensive courts violations of the state act . . .?” His prophecy has more than present come true in the case. States. in the United music for profit
tion of copyrighted fix through self- prices Not combination only does this its directors, but twenty-four board perpetuating great is so of musical rendition power over business compositions, rights single to sell that it can refuse *14 monopo- a take, to at does, require purchasers can, and num- all fee, repertory entire annual listically fixed And these fees by the combination. bers controlled locality. in the same even purchasers not same for like in the same stations radio competing shows that Evidence serving same power on the same city, operating for identical widely variant fees charged audience, are competition, but not because rights, performance that appears Since monopoly power. the exercise part public entertainment is an music essential arbitrarily com- other businesses radio stations profit, discriminatory price faced with fees are pelled pay to destroy them, could because that fixing practices all—if com- practically not monopoly has a Society consideration also music. When is pletely all—available arbitrarily fixed lower that an rate to fact given itself controlled another a favored station granted newspaper communication —a public instrument —the of the of public for control channels possibilities ultimate are apparent. information communication that fixing actually a combination price here We have every and death over of life business power wields upon copyrighted elsewhere, dependent Florida, and Such a monopolistic existence. compositions musical fix prices power destroy. power combination’s grant combination the equity privi- court of a .this Should anti-monopoly law? violating a state Does lege of Voight Co., Co. v Paper & Sons Cf., Continental Wall 939; Co., affirming F. Gibbs v. Baltimore Gas 227, 262, 152 F. Co., Camors-McConnell 412. McConnell Pacific prohibiting state'law such a combination present “grave questions”? constitutional my
It is state law position prohibiting monopo listic price fixing restraint trade is not “novel” and of. “unique” “grave and raises questions.” no constitutional constitutional-right pass States to laws against should monopolies beyond possibility now of contro versy. “That legislatures right have the ... prevent unlawful prevent combinations to competition of trade, restraint and to prohibit and punish monopolies, open is not to question,”9 and few have challenged power of state legislatures to ordain that “competition combination, should be the law 10 Surely, trade.” thére is presently no basis to doubt and to power assert “grave its exercise raises questions.” recently As this Court constitutional *15 held that Puerto Rico, legislative powers equal to, “nearly but as by extensive as exercised any those legislature,” prohibit monopolistic could price fixing subjects one the “rightful legislation” upon which legislatures act.11
If States have somehow their historic power lost to monopolistic fixing prohibit price combinations before Co., Telegraph Postal Cable Co. v. Western Union Tel. 493; 50 F. Mfg. Klotz, Biscuit & American Co. 721; v. 44 F. 1 Equity Pom. (3rd Ed.) 402. Juris. § (No. 1), 212 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas 86, 107. “There nothing is precludes the Constitution the United States which adopting enforcing a State which secure com [statutes petition preclude combinations which tend . to defeat . . it] stepping decide would be International Har To so backwards.” Missouri, Co. v. 199, vester Atlantic & Tea See, S. Pac. U. Grosjean, York, Co. v. 425-6; Nebbia New 412, 301 U. S. 291 U. S Co., 529; Rast Van & Lewis Deman S. 366-7. U. Texas, National Cotton Oil Co. Carroll v. Co., Greenwich supra, Ins. Puerto Co., Rico Shell 253, 260, 261. court, what presentation point to a federal at of evidence they manner it? The history and in what did lose .our authority, by people have not exercised their exclusive amendment, strip to States of their Constitutional power raise price fixing over combinations and thus legislative monopoly power above the traditional bodies. had bar Florida expressly
It conceded at price fixing to combi- power prohibit Constitutional power. nations laws limited this copyright unless the ren- argument case, decision And, present since prin- clear the February 13, year, dered us made immunity copy- no laws ciple copyright grant that the right prohibiting monopolistic from statutes owners “An there declared that practices agreements. We com- because it agreement illegal [by suppresses statute] article any competitive less because petition is not so is copyrighted.”12 judicially great
“Due endowed with process” has been rights, but it incon- elasticity property relation refuge for monopolies afford ceivable that would people’s representatives. deemed undesirable legislature public policy deter- When a as matter cannot, we monopolistic combinations, prohibit mines to rightfully “review process,” of “due under doctrine “due And, although their facts.”13 their economics or take can evidence either add process” invoked, regulate or legislative permit, prohibit power from the in the interest? monopolies public in the are relied allegations bill general Several *16 of Florida until justify statute suspension the upon the should by a court. It is said court is heard evidence that out exercise the “bill because sets hear evidence the Act to control Copyright the Federal rights granted of 12 S. 230. States, Inc. v. United Circuit, Interstate 157, 161. Dakota, Co. South Lumber Central for profit prohibited of is compositions the performance .” But what can the court . . the statute evidence comparing in the hear that will assist it statute pur- even Florida statute does not laws? The copyright compositions of port prohibit “performance the. threatened, enjoined have neither and the officials profit,” It such is they intend, prohibit performance. nor do alleges éxisting impaired” “that said the bill contracts contracts can affected unless no by the statute. But price fixing. That the involving prohibited monopolistic execution of prohibits law the continuation and Florida agree- of fixing practices pursuance price monopoly law was can be no basis passed, made before the ments objection.14 constitutional alleges “property the bill taken without com- is
It said (and statute, itself, If property, takes pensation.” application of the statute charge no unconstitutional manner of required 'to show the made) evidence is is alleges statute It is the bill violates taking? said threatened thing the sole But “equal protection.” fixing combination— prosecution price admitted copyright all musical comprised practically owners nation. “. if an evil . . publishers [of is-specially experienced particular branch monopoly] no prohibition Constitution embodies business, requirement evil, or doctrinaire laws confined embracing in all It be couched terms. does they should advance, step by the cautious step, forbid which sometimes have been generalities distrust strength, weakness, English legisla- but often penalty provided drastic for prac- It is said a tion.” supra, (No. Texas Oil Co. 1), Waters-Pierce 108. Co., supra, Ins. Central Lumber v. Greenwich Carroll Co. Dakota, supra,. legislature may “A hit at an abuse v. South found, though it has strike at which it has even failed to another.” Co., Carotene Products United States U. *17 ticing price fixing. What evidence will to enlighten serve Court the statutory penalty? on That penalty set clearly out the statute. If it invalidates the statute, that determination should be made how. present recently case illustrates how
The fashioned judicial formula under which state laws enjoined must be questions” constitutional in a “grave presented if are actually judicial complaint, results automatic sus any general upon complaint of state statutes pension apparently operation inevitable federal court. a counter to the Amendment in formula Tenth runs States over their preserve the control tended opens the door legislation, local to further eva own protecting Amendment the States of the Eleventh sions A courts.16 lower federal court’s federal suits suspend a state statute was in its “discretion” refusal ques constitutional “grave because- recently reversed deemed raised requiring evidence —were tions” — fruit by requiring citrus cans to that the statute charges violated Constitution.17 And labeled truthfully be enjoined state law in its Court here, where the District holding injunction is sustained “discretion,” the “grave constitutional because be heard should evidence court’s “dis However the lower involved. are questions” apparently formula exercised, may be cretion” suspended. one result —state statutes but achieves injunction re bill scrutiny appellees’ Careful indicating power Florida’s allegations no veals fixing would, even under the monopolistic price prohibit any “particular by proof altered applied, formula . . . properly which are sub . . . facts economic J., 123, Harlan, dissenting, 168- Young, parte Ex Cf. 530; Ayers, 516, 528, re McGhee, In 172 U. S. see Fitts 443, 496, Glover, 305 U. S. Polk v.Co. ject findings.'18 of evidence True, alleges the bill that the statute of Florida legislation and similar enacted by other “sponsored States were by' an organized group ... their aggrandizement own selfish . . . *18 adequate hearing being without afforded complain similarly situated,” ants and others and “in truth and in fact, was enacted in public not inter [the statute] est Appellees . . allege also that “unless the en forcement of this State statute is restrained . . . other in States, addition Florida, Montana, Washington, Tennessee, Nebraska and may enact similar . . statutes . all which of would work undue hardship on complain ants and would spirit violate the of the Constitu tion . . .” These are strongest some of the not—if strongest allegations the bill’s deemed “grave to raise —of questions.” constitutional injunction Is the temporary approved so that in federal court may Florida hear evidence on what constitutes the public interest Flor ida? Shall the court hear evidence to determine whether “unless the not enforcement of this statute is re “in States, strained” other Florida,” addition to may similarly prohibit appellees’ monopoly? perceive is difficult to
It in the future —under how any law, state directly or indirectly af- formula — fecting can property, injunction become effective until dragged proceedings have their weary way through fed- All eral state might courts. statutes hereafter well sub- “to expression stitute take effect within” a cer- time, tain period the words “to take effect after the Federal courts heard have evidence to determine” their (wisdom). And reasonableness the formula likewise fits Congressional Had pronouncement enactments. of this gradual the culmination judicial formula been ad- everywhere been vances, it would have recognized as a Baldwin, supra, Borden’s Co. at 210. form of our constitutional revolutionary departure from legislation, under which the wisdom government, left legislative action, within the field of people. judgment representatives elected Florida can comfort the admonition that find little “Ordinarily expected temporary that where would be injunction necessary a final order is considered ... law has speed.” would follow with all This convenient suspended experience for a already year, now been injunctive laws suspension demonstrates years hang many the courts for state action can receiving disposition.19 final before Amount. Second. Jurisdictional injunc- alleged their bill for appellees These eleven more on behalf themselves they tion that sued Society. members of the 1,000 (American) than other member, made here “that for No determination is controversy matter in is of the value who is a party, *19 $3,000. while jurisdictional However, of the amount” — establishing jurisdictional in are not aided appellees that . : . sued on “allegation [they] amount 20 situated,” the court never- similarly behalf others in jurisdictional amount is theless holds that contro- mem- aggregate rights in of the of all versy “the value not 1,000 the more than who have (including bers” fix in prices combine and in person) appeared Florida. a may a case as this be called
“Assuming that such . . . . . could be maintained as such . action, class a properly be class action does not may that it yet affect up aggregation making claims for against the rule [of 419, Indianapolis Co., dissent, v. Water McCart 19 See 435, and note. 20 77, 262 Karatz, Co. v. Bonding Lion
89
aggrega-
because
amount],
jurisdictional
[such
class
to those
only applicable
necessarily
...
is
tion]
joined
to a fund
claimants
in which several
actions
rights
undivided
asserting common
as plaintiffs
21
undivided
common and
no
assert
Appellees
therein.”
payable
amount
“the
property;23
or
in
fund22
rights
hfe contract
depends upon
Society]
[by
to each
would
seek, as
appellees’ bill
Neither does
alone.”24
in
equity,
protect
bill
representative
class or
traditional
single
to a
and traceable
under
rights all claimed
group
.
can en-
plaintiff]
rights “which"'.
.
one
decree,25or
[no
because derived
of the” others
.the absence
force
all
proceeding,
In this
security instrument.26
single
al-
Society
in common is their
have
members of the
the Florida
impunity
with
statute
leged right
violate
to and violation
Unless
fixing.
opposition
against price
have
unity, appellees
their bond
can
of the statute
.
. .
for con-
distinct demands
“séparate and
[united]
n
économy
single suit,
venience and
[and]
requisite
of the
each be
the demand of
essential
27
amount.”
jurisdictional
plaintiffs as a matter
joinder
many
Permissible
economy
enlarging
a means of
convenience
District Court.
under
Rule
jurisdiction
representative
brought,
suit was
class
did
which this
F.
Co.,
Northwestern
Mutual
Ins.
Eberhard
Life
apparent approval
Co. v.
Bonding
Lion
356, referred
Karatz, supra.
Swormstedt,
90 jurisdiction not, in fact could extend which
not, upon Congress.28 depends solely Acts of disregard a A common desire to state law cannot serve for purposes common undivided interest as a of fed jurisdiction;29 otherwise, oppose all a eral who such law aggregate alleged rights can the values of their individual disregard law, they may escape as to order that so and.bring courts a its law before a federal State And court. fact that a state law pecuniary inflicts upon non-profit loss members aof because of association membership their permit does not aggregation of the members’ pecuniary interests upon as basis for attack in a law federal “on court some members behalf 30 with the authority of all.” Here, the individual members showing they have made no of what as indi viduals have at stake —or what all the members as stand to class lose virtue the Florida law. enjoined prose state officials only duty have appellees
cute if they fix prices continue to issue (i. e., licenses) through monopolistic combinations, and these' have expressly officials to do disavowed intention Appellees more.31 are left free to form combina such they please tions purpose protect Florida for the ing against copyright infringements. They de are here prived by the Florida only right statute to com
28 Pillsbury, Alaska 174, 177; Christopher Packers Assn. v. 301 U. S. Brusselback, 500, 505; see, KVOS, v. Press, Inc. Associated v. 269, S.U.
29 Pope Blanton,
Supp. 15, 18,
10 F.
per
dismissed
curiam for
requisite jurisdictional
lack of
521;
controversy,
amount in
Donaugh,
Gavica v.
The statutory standard is precise and in controversy conjectural. amount be therefore cannot “It impossible is foresee into what mazes of specula- conjecture may tion we not be a departure led from simplicity statutory provision. “Accordingly this Court uniformly has been strict 35 adhere to and enforce it.” compliance” legislative with an assailed may “Cost act be controversy considered the measure of the amount a right when complainant regulated, required or where he take affirmative Cf., Kroger Lutz, Grocery Co. action.. U. S. McNutt Acceptance Corp., v. General Motors U. But required been appellees have not steps, to take affirmative nor they prices permitted they to fix on “comply” condition that regulations. fixing prices through The combinations has Obviously, appellees prohibited. prohibited been be cannot from they may doing by “complying” that which also do with the statute. Marshall, Elgin amount proof appellee Without each or member issue, .“aggregate has in how can amount” fixed at any figure? jurisdictional
Rigid requirement enforcement of will limit the federal courts legislation interference policy Congress will accord with the in narrowing jurisdiction federal courts successive increases in jurisdictional amount.36 policy 'The of the statute calls its strict construction.”37 Since no individual has that he has complainant established the statutory jurisdictional controversy, amount to rest jurisdiction no more a federal court on than the unified desire of violate many complainants to a state statute prohibiting fixing, does monopolistic price constitute a if “novel, judicial “grave” unique,” departure juris- requirement Congress. fixed by dictional complete suspension Third. otherwise of Florida’s only by law was limited condition that appellees bond, make of five thousand payable dollars *23 to At torney General of Florida and the District Attorneys of these Manifestly, State. officials no the have individual in monopoly prohibited by interest the the Florida law. injuries major accruing The from the suspension of the law will not be inflicted but upon them, upon the people of Florida who to required pay are monopoly prices while enjoined. the law remains while Thus, the is sus Jaw these non-resident can on pended, appellees carry a mo contrary business in Florida nopolistic its prohibitions, pay and the Florida who must people monopoly prices granted protection. no We have recently declared the governing principle “it is duty of a court of the. equity injunctive granting relief to do so upon conditions protect including public that will inter all— —whose 36 Healy Ratta, See 292 U. S. 37Id. injunction here The injunction may
ests affect.” protect would upon was not conditions that granted it. neither affected It might of all who be interests be appellees to monopoly ordered the exacted tribute statute, paid Florida during suspension into court required adequate nor of, a bond for benefit tribute until pay those must this indemnify who permits go into court statute effect.
. this now to correct the Nevertheless, refuses Court may who suffer grossly unjust protect failure to those of the Florida irreparable injury suspension law. ground objection on the that “No as to the ade appears injunction. other terms of the quacy the bond These under the control of the lower court.” remain already control the lower court has exercised its However, injurious apparent in error on the resulting manifestly equity this appeal record.39 And the whole “upon render under all us, case we such decree as before can not proper.”40 may Litigation circumstances only alert game justice which can be awarded to the here —a objector, particularly and fastidious when —as rights public members of the suspends statutory court object. no who, being court, opportunity have injustice vio apparent to the on record public play. and fair rudimentary equity lates principles permit We neither nor it. should condone law, of a obtain They constitutionality who attack the its then to violate judicial suspension, and continue its States, 306 U. S. Co. United Inland Steel 217, 222; See, Cramer, United States Lamb 242, 256; Revised Rules Co., Tennessee R. & Coosa d States, 27, paragraph cf., Mahler Supreme the Unite Court of *24 45. v. S. Eby, 423; Irrigation Co., 184 U. S. v. Rio Grande United States Ridings Co., supra, 454; Traction. Cincinnati Cincinnati & H. cf., Patterson U. Alabama, Johnson, 600, 607.
n terms, should not benefit' the suspension, in the event law -is later held constitutional. Otherwise, judi- cially granted period immunity will reward litigants unsuccessfully who assail the constitutionality "of legis- Seemingly, lation. has arrived when time despite our system- constitutional government no state law can become until effective a federal court hears evidence on constitutionality. its responsible for this courts — fundamental change at least protect citizens of —should enacting State disobedience to a law per- an erroneous in- improvident interlocutory mitted junction.
The interlocutory inj should unction/ be vacated. BUCK al. GALLAGHER, STATE TREASURER, et
et al. Argued January 10, April 17, No. 1939. Decided