220 U.S. 210
EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, by Charles N. Haskell, Governor, etc., Petitioner.
Argued April 4 and 5, 1910
Ordered for argument before a full bench, May 31, 1910.
Reargued February 23, 1911.
Decided April 3, 1911.
Messrs. Fred S. Caldwell and Joseph W. Bailey for petitioner.
Messrs. Joseph S. Graydon, Lawrence Maxwell, and E. G. McAdams as amici curioe. [220 U.S. 210, 211] Messrs. S. T. Bledsoe, J. R. Cottingham, Aldis B. Browne, Alexander Britton, Evans Browne, Joseph M. Bryson, Clifford L. Jackson, William R. Allen, and James Hagerman for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court:
In this case it is asked that a writ of prohibition be issued, restraining District Judge Cotteral, sitting as judge of the circuit court for the western district of Oklahoma, from further proceeding in seven separate actions commenced in said court,-two brought by railroad companies and five by shippers,-like in character to the cases which formed the basis of the application made in No. 9, Original. The grounds upon which the right to the writ in this case is based are also substantially the same as in the other.
Of the seven suits referred to, the first was commenced by the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company in August 1908; the second by the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company in October, 1908; and the remaining cases were commenced in October and November, 1909.
The bill of the Atchison road, among other things, alleged the taking possession by the defendants of more than fortythree separate interstate shipments of intoxicating liquors while in the custody of the railway company, and before delivery to the consignee, and the threatened confiscation of the property. In both of the suits commenced by the railway companies no jurisdictional objection was raised at any time in the circuit court. Not only was this so, but in a cross complaint incorporated with answers filed in each case, one of the defendants, counsel to the governor of Oklahoma, prayed relief against the railway companies, upon the theory that, by the delivery of interstate shipments to persons who intended to use the [220 U.S. 210, 212] same in violation of the state prohibition law, the 'complainant thereby creates a public nuisance in said state.' In the five suits commenced by foreign liquor dealers, however, demurrers 'for lack of jurisdiction and equity' were filed, and in all but one lengthy answers were filed. In two of the cases numerous affidavits were filed and temporary orders were refused, whereupon temporary bills were filed and temporary injunctions were granted. Proceedings in contempt were also instituted in several of the cases for alleged violations of the injunctions. Moreover, in several of the cases the demurrers were heard and overruled, while in the others no action was taken subsequent to the filing of the answers or demurrers. In certain of the cases, also, affidavits were filed to the effect that goods which had been ordered returned by a justice of the peace upon the ground that they were exempt from seizure because the interstate tranportation had not ended were again seized upon search warrants issued by another justice.
In his return to the rule to show cause, the district judge, among other things, said:
... * *
... * *
It is manifest that the reasons which led to the refusal to issue the writ in No. 9, Original, just decided [ 220 U.S. 191 , 55 L. ed. --, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426] are applicable to and control this case, and the order therefore will be-rule discharged and prohibition denied.