Westerly Waterworks v. Town of Westerly

Nos. 2,522 and 2,523
Decided Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island
Disposition
affirmed
full scope
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island
Decided
Judge
COLT, Circuit Judge
Posture
Preliminary injunctions granted, motions to dissolve filed
Defendants (1)
Town of Westerly et al.
Francis Colwell, Walter H. Barney, A. B. Crafts
v.
Complainantss (2)
Westerly Waterworks and Seamen’s Friend Society et al.
William O. Loring, Walter B. Vincent, Joseph O. Ely, James M. Ripley

Overview

The court overruled all objections to setting the motions to dissolve the preliminary injunctions for hearing. The motions stand for hearing before Judge Brown and myself at a time to be set upon application of counsel.

Case summary

Two consolidated cases involving motions to dissolve preliminary injunctions granted by Judge Carpenter in June 1896. The defendants appealed the injunction orders to the circuit court of appeals, which dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction due to a constitutional question under the Act of March 3, 1891. The defendants then filed motions in the circuit court to dissolve the injunctions. The complainants objected to setting these motions for hearing on three grounds: (1) improper form of motions, (2) applicability of circuit court rule 16 governing rehearings, and (3) impropriety of a circuit judge reviewing a district judge's order. The court overruled all objections, holding that rule 16 does not apply to interlocutory injunction orders, temporary injunctions are always subject to modification, and while review by the original judge is preferred, another judge may hear the motion when necessary, preferably with two judges. The motions were set for hearing before Judges Colt and Brown.

Abstract

In consolidated cases, defendants sought to dissolve preliminary injunctions previously granted by a district judge, appealing unsuccessfully to the circuit court of appeals due to jurisdictional issues before filing motions in the circuit court. Complainants objected to hearing the motions on grounds of improper form, applicability of a rehearing rule to interlocutory injunctions, and impropriety of review by a different judge. The court overruled all objections, holding the rehearing rule inapplicable, temporary injunctions always modifiable, and another judge able to hear the motion when necessary, setting it for hearing before two judges.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinion
COLT, Circuit Judgejoined by BROWN, Judge
  • Rule 16 applies only to rehearings on merits, not interlocutory injunction orders
  • Temporary injunctions are always subject to motion to vacate or modify
  • Federal practice prefers review by original judge but allows another judge when necessary

Jurisdiction

challenged
Jurisdictional holding
Circuit court of appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain appeals under section 7 of the act of March 3, 1891 due to constitutional question
Jurisdictional facts
  • Cases raise a constitutional question
  • Circuit court of appeals dismissed appeals for want of jurisdiction under section 7 of the act of March 3, 1891

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Preliminary injunctions granted, motions to dissolve filed
Posture on appeal
Direct appeal from injunction orders dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Preserved issues
  • Motion to dissolve preliminary injunctions
  • Objections to setting motions for hearing

Legal categories

Business

Case record

Full case name
WESTERLY WATERWORKS v. TOWN OF WESTERLY et al. SEAMEN’S FRIEND SOC. et al. v. SAME.
Docket number
Nos. 2,522 and 2,523
Court
Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island
Trial court
Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island
Decided
Opinion author
COLT, Circuit Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
COLT, Circuit JudgeBROWN, Judge

Issues & holdings

3
Issues raised
3
affirmed
3
Holdings
Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Rule 16 relates to rehearings of cases heard on merits and does not apply to interlocutory orders granting temporary injunctions

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Interlocutory orders granting temporary injunctions are at all times subject to motion to vacate or modify, regardless of any discussion of merits during granting

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

While motion should ordinarily be addressed to judge who granted it, in case of judge's death or impracticability, another judge may hear it, preferably with two judges

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Applicability of rule 16 to motions to dissolve temporary injunctions
Rule 16 does not apply to motions to dissolve temporary injunctions
Rule 16 relates to rehearings of cases heard on merits, while temporary injunctions are interlocutory orders not determining merits
unanimousbinding precedent
Reviewability of temporary injunction orders
Temporary injunctions are always subject to motion to vacate or modify
Interlocutory orders granting temporary injunctions are not final determinations on merits and remain subject to modification throughout proceedings
unanimousbinding precedent
Authority to review another judge's injunction order
A circuit judge may review such an order when impracticable to address original judge, preferably with two judges
Federal practice prefers motion to original judge, but necessity (e.g., judge's death) allows review by another judge to ensure access to modification
unanimousbinding precedent

Error analysis

  • Complainant's theory that hearing on preliminary injunction was a final hearing — procedural · error foundCourt clarified that preliminary injunction hearing is not a determination on merits · harmless

Statutory interpretation

1
Statute
Act of March 3, 1891, section 7 (26 Stat. 826)
Question
Jurisdiction of circuit court of appeals over appeals involving constitutional questions
Court's reading
Circuit court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals under this section when constitutional question is raised
Canons applied
plain meaning

Standards of review

  • Application of court rules to motions to dissolve injunctions — de novo Interpretation of court rules is a legal question reviewed de novo
  • Reviewability of temporary injunction orders — de novo Legal question regarding nature of interlocutory orders reviewed de novo
  • Authority to review another judge's injunction order — de novo Question of judicial authority and practice reviewed de novo

Timeline

6
Events
220
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
filingcited in opinion

Bill filed in case No. 2,522

Initiation of first lawsuit

Westerly Waterworks · Town of Westerly et al. trial court
filingcited in opinion

Bill filed in case No. 2,523

Initiation of second lawsuit

Seamen’s Friend Society et al. · Town of Westerly et al. trial court
hearingcited in opinion

Judge Carpenter heard both cases together on motion for preliminary injunction

Hearing on preliminary injunction motion

Judge Carpenter · Parties trial court
rulingcited in opinion

Judge Carpenter directed that a writ of injunction issue in each case

Outcome: Preliminary injunctions granted

Grant of temporary injunctions

Judge Carpenter trial court
appeal eventcited in opinion

Circuit court of appeals dismissed appeals from injunction orders for want of jurisdiction

Outcome: Appeals dismissed

Appellate court lacked jurisdiction due to constitutional question

Circuit court of appeals · Parties appellate court
hearingcited in opinion

Hearing on objections to setting motions to dissolve injunctions for hearing

Outcome: Motions set for hearing before Judges Colt and Brown

Court overruled objections and scheduled hearing on motions to dissolve

COLT, Circuit Judge · Parties trial court

Facts & evidence

Key facts

5 facts
  1. Two suits filed in May 1896
  2. Preliminary injunctions granted on June 30, 1896
  3. Defendants appealed injunction orders to circuit court of appeals
  4. Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction on October 23, 1896
  5. Defendants filed motions to dissolve injunctions after dismissal

Procedural history

5 steps
  1. Bills filed May 22 and May 27, 1896
  2. Hearing on motion for preliminary injunction June 25, 1896
  3. Injunctions issued June 30, 1896
  4. Appeals to circuit court of appeals dismissed October 23, 1896
  5. Motions to dissolve filed thereafter

Evidence in the record

Documentary
  • Bills filed May 22 and May 27, 1896
  • Injunction orders dated June 30, 1896
  • Circuit court of appeals opinion dismissing appeals

Authorities

Cited authorities (2)

75 Fed. 181
citedprecedent
Reference to prior decision granting preliminary injunctions
76 Fed. 467
citedprecedent
Reference to circuit court of appeals opinion dismissing appeals

Related cases (2)

75 Fed. 181
prior appeal
Preliminary injunctions granted
76 Fed. 467
prior appeal
Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Statutes

  • Act of March 3, 1891, section 7 (26 Stat. 826)

Standards & doctrines

  • Federal practice on reviewing another judge's injunction order
  • Discretionary standard for preliminary injunctions

Legal principles applied

  • Temporary injunctions are always subject to modification
  • Preliminary injunction hearings are not determinations on merits

Notable quotes

“Interlocutory orders granting temporary injunctions pending a hearing on the merits are at all times subject to motion to vacate or modify.”
COLT, Circuit Judge — Discussing the nature of temporary injunction orders
Establishes that temporary injunctions remain modifiable throughout proceedings
“The granting or refusing of such injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and is not a determination of the merits of the case.”
COLT, Circuit Judge — Explaining the discretionary nature of preliminary injunctions
Clarifies that preliminary injunction decisions do not constitute final judgments on merits
Index terms49
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
affirmed
Target
Objections to setting motions for hearing
Appealed from
Complainants' objections
Context
Court overruled all objections to setting motions to dissolve preliminary injunctions for hearing
Scope
full
Further instructions
Motions stand for hearing before Judges Colt and Brown at time to be set upon application of counsel
Search facets
Parties
Judges
BrownCarpenter
Courts
Statutes cited