Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Graham v. Federal Tender Board No. 1

118 F.2d 8

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1941-03-04
Topic
general

FOSTER, Circuit Judge. Federal Tender Board No. 1, organized under the provisions of the Act of February 22, 1935, 15 U.S.C.A. § 715 et seq., known as the Connally Act, to administer the law in the East Texas oil field issued and served a subpoena upon appellant requiring him to appear before it to give testimony pertinent to an investigation it was conducting. Upon his refusal to comply with .the order this suit was brought in the United States District Court to compel him to do so. An order to show cause issued. Appellant answered the rule, denying the jurisdiction and authority of the Board.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Graham v. Federal Tender Board No. 1. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
GRAHAM v. FEDERAL TENDER BOARD NO. 1,118 F.2d 8(5th Cir. 1941)
GRAHAM v. FEDERAL TENDER BOARD NO. 1.
No. 9339.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 4, 1941.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas; James V. Allred, Judge.

Action by Federal Tender Board No. 1 against W. "Blondie" Graham, to compel defendant's appearance before the board to give testimony in a pending investigation. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.
F.W. Fischer, of Tyler, Tex., for appellant.

Steve M. King, U.S. Atty., and Warren Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Beaumont, Tex., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Federal Tender Board No. 1, organized under the provisions of the Act of February 22, 1935,15 U.S.C.A. § 715et seq., known as the Connally Act, to administer the law in the East Texas oil field issued and served a subpoena upon appellant requiring him to appear before it to give testimony pertinent to an investigation it was conducting. Upon his refusal to comply with the order this suit was brought in the United States District Court to compel him to do so. An order to show cause issued. Appellant answered the rule, denying the jurisdiction and authority of the Board. From an adverse ruling this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant does not challenge the validity of the law nor the authority of the Board generally but contends the Board can proceed only by mandatory injunction, under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act.15 U.S.C.A. § 715i.

Section 9 of the Act,15 U.S.C.A. § 715hprovides the Board may hold and conduct hearings and investigations as may be necessary and incorporates by reference the provisions of Section 21 of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act,15 U.S.C.A. § 78u, which authorizes the commission to subpoena witnesses and apply to the District Court to compel their attendance. The provision of the Connally Act for a mandatory injunction does not set aside or nullify this part of the statute. The provisions are complementary and the Board, in its discretion, may use either method in seeking information to enable it to administer the law.
The judgment is affirmed.Page 9
Page 43