A judgment of a state court refusing to enjoin proceedings under
a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional does not present a
substantial federal question when the outcome of those proceedings,
if pursued, and its effect upon the federal rights asserted by the
complainant, are matters of conjecture.
Appeal from 264 N.Y. 475 dismissed.
Appeal from a judgment, entered on remittitur, which reversed an
injunction order of the Supreme Court of New York (150 Misc. 467)
and denied the injunction.
Page 293 U. S. 189
PER CURIAM.
The Court of Appeals of the New York reversed an order of the
Special Term of the Supreme Court which enjoined the Superintendent
of Insurance from making any payments for expenditures incurred in
connection with plans of reorganization promulgated under chapter
745 of the Laws of 1933 relating to guaranteed participating
certificates sold by the New York Title & Mortgage Company. The
motion for injunction, denied by the Court of Appeals, was made in
advance of the promulgation of a plan by the Superintendent of
Insurance applicable to the interests of the appellants. Whether,
if a plan of reorganization is promulgated by the Superintendent of
Insurance, it will be approved by the Court as required by the
statute, or whether, if so approved, it will be opposed by
certificate holders, or will receive the assent of the present
appellants, or will operate to deprive them of any asserted
constitutional right, are matters of conjecture.
The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal
question.
Liverpool, N.Y. & P. S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of
Emigration, 113 U. S. 33,
113 U. S. 39;
California
v.
Page 293 U. S. 190
San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.
S. 308,
149 U. S. 314;
Stearns v. Wood, 236 U. S. 75,
236 U. S. 78;
Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439,
281 U. S. 449.