18,
134-136 (1941).
[663] Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is the leading case.
[664] Arrowsmith _v._ Gleason, 129 U.S. 86 (1889); Marshall _v._ Holmes,
141 U.S. 589 (1891); Simon _v._ Southern R. Co., 236 U.S. 115 (1915).
[665] French _v._ Hay, 22 Wall. 231 (1875); Dietzsch _v._ Huidekoper,
103 U.S. 494 (1881); Madisonville Traction Co. _v._ St. Bernard Mining
Co., 196 U.S. 239 (1905).
[666] The earlier cases are Root _v._ Woolworth, 150 U.S. 401 (1893);
Prout _v._ Starr, 188 U.S. 537 (1903); Juilian _v._ Central Trust Co.,
193 U.S. 93 (1904).
[667] 314 U.S. 118 (1941).
[668] Ibid. 133-141. Justice Reed, in a dissent in which Chief Justice
Stone and Justice Roberts concurred, also reviewed the authorities.
[669] Southern Ry. Co. _v._ Painter, 314 U.S. 155 (1941).
[670] 9 Wheat. 738 (1824).
[671] 209 U.S. 123 (1908). _See also_ Smyth _v._ Ames, 169 U.S. 466
(1898); Reagan _v._ Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 (1894).
[672] Harkrader _v._ Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898); In re Sawyer, 124 U.S.
200 (1888).
[673] Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 163 (1908).
[674] Ibid. 174. The Young case evoked sharp criticism in Congress and
led to the enactment of Sec. 266 of the Judicial Code, prohibiting the
issuance of injunctions to restrain enforcement of State laws by a
single federal judge, providing for a three-judge court in such cases,
limiting the effect of temporary injunctions, and expediting appeals in
such cases to the Supreme Court. Act of June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539; 28
U.S.C.A. Sec. 1253, 2281, 2284. A supplementary act in 1913 (37 Stat.
1013) amended Sec. 266 of the Judicial Code providing for the stay of
federal proceedings to enjoin State legislation if a suit has been
brought in a State court to enforce the legislation until the State court
has determined the issues. Section 266 was amended again in 1925 when the
provisions concerning interlocutory injunctions were extended to include
permanent injunctions. Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 938.
[675] Prentis _v._ Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908);
Gilchrist _v._ Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 279 U.S. 159 (1929);
Grubb _v._ Public Utilities Commission, 281 U.S. 470 (1930); Beal _v._
Missouri Pacific R. Co., 312 U.S. 45 (1941).
[676] Phillips _v._ United States, 312 U.S. 246, 249 (1941), citing and
quoting Ex parte Collins, 277 U.S. 565, 577 (1928).
[677] 312 U.S. 246, 251, citing Moore _v._ Fidelity & Deposit Co
|