Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Collins v. Porter

328 U.S. 46

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1946-04-22
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners were stockholders in a distilling corporation on the dissolution of which in December, 1942, they received as their share of the assets warehouse receipts covering the bulk whiskey owned by the corporation. Early in January, 1943, they sold these receipts at a price above that fixed by the Administrator for bulk whiskey, Maximum Price Regulation 193, 7 Fed. Reg. 6006 (August 4, 1942), on the assumption that the receipts constituted “securities” expressly exempt from the pricing provisions.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Collins v. Porter. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions
COLLINSv. PORTER,328 U.S. 46(1946)
66 S.Ct. 893
COLLINS ET AL.v. PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.
CERTIORARI TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.
No. 393.
Argued February 26, 1946.
Decided April 22, 1946.
1. The decision of this case on the merits is governed byUtahJunk Co. v.Porter, ante, p. 39. P. 49. 2. While a suit for treble damages under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act was pending in the District Court against petitioners, they filed with the Price Administrator a protest under § 203(a) seeking to have the regulation on which the enforcement proceeding was based declared invalid or inapplicable. The protest was dismissed by the Price Administrator, and petitioners' ensuing complaint in the Emergency Court of Appeals was dismissed by that court without opinion. Upon a complaint filed by leave of the District Court under § 204(e) of the Act, the Emergency Court of Appeals sustained the validity of the regulation but refused to pass on its applicability to petitioners.Heldthat the judgment of the Emergency Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in the protest proceeding under § 203(a) was not rendered moot by its judgment sustaining the validity of the regulation in the proceeding under § 204(e). P. 48. 3. The fact that Congress by the 1944 amendment of the Emergency Price Control Act granted a limited opportunity for review of a regulation by the Emergency Court of Appeals by leave of a district court in which an enforcement proceeding is pending, neither repealed nor qualified the protest proceeding originally authorized by § 203(a). The two methods of securing a hearing on the validity and applicability of a price regulation are cumulative and not alternative. P. 49. 4. A person against whom a treble damage suit for violation of a regulation under the Emergency Price Control Act is pending, is a "person subject to . . . such regulation" within the meaning of § 203(a) of the Act, although the regulation has since been revoked or superseded.United Statesv.Hark,320 U.S. 531. P. 49. Reversed.Page 47
Petitioners filed with the Price Administrator a protest under
the Emergency Price Control Act. The Price Administrator denied
the protest. The Emergency Court of Appeals dismissed the
petitioners' complaint. This Court granted certiorari.326 U.S. 710.
Reversed, p. 49.
Mac Asbillargued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief wereAllen P. Dodd, Sr. andMax O'Rell Truitt.Richard H. Fieldargued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief wereSolicitor General McGrath, John R. Benney,Jacob D. HymanandJohn O. Honnold, Jr.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners were stockholders in a distilling corporation on the dissolution of which in December, 1942, they received as their share of the assets warehouse receipts covering the bulk whiskey owned by the corporation. Early in January, 1943, they sold these receipts at a price above that fixed by the Administrator for bulk whiskey, Maximum Price Regulation 193, 7 Feb. Reg. 6006 (August 4, 1942), on the assumption that the receipts constituted "securities" expressly exempt from the pricing provisions.

On the basis of the sale of these certificates the Administrator, under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act,56 Stat. 23, 34; 50 U.S.C. App. § 925(e), brought a suit for treble damages against the petitioners to recover approximately $6,800,000. That suit is still pending. In May, 1945, petitioners, invoking the authority of § 203(a),56 Stat. 23, 31,58 Stat. 632, 638; 50 U.S.C. App. § 923(a), sought to have the regulation on which the enforcement proceedings against them were based declaredPage 48invalid or inapplicable by a protest filed with the Administrator. He dismissed it on the authority ofThomas PaperStock Co. v.Bowles,148 F.2d 831, the ruling of which we have reversed inUtah Junk Co. v.Porter, decided this day,ante, p. 39. Petitioners then went to the Emergency Court, which dismissed the complaint without opinion, and we grantedcertiorari.326 U.S. 710. Prior to the petition forcertiorari, petitioners obtained leave of the trial court in the treble damage action to file a complaint with the Emergency Court under § 204(e) of the Act,58 Stat. 632, 639, 50 U.S.C. App. § 925(e), and on January 10, 1946, that court sustained the validity of the regulation.Collinsv.Bowles,152 F.2d 760.

The Government contends that the latter decision of the Emergency Court renders moot the judgment of that court dismissing the complaint, which is the only judgment now before us. This Court is powerless to decide a case if its decision "cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it."St. Pierrev.United States,319 U.S. 41,42. The decision of this case may affect the rights of the litigants. The Emergency Court sustained the challenged regulation. It refused to pass on the applicability of the regulation to the petitioners. It left that question to the District Court before which the treble damage suit is pending. Had petitioners' contentions come before the Emergency Court through the protest proceedings under § 203(a) that court would have adjudicated both issues.Conklin Pen Co. v.Bowles,152 F.2d 764;Collinsv.Bowles, supra. And in the event that the Emergency Court had found the regulation inapplicable and such decision had been made before a judgment was rendered in the District Court, its ruling would be binding upon the District Court. Under § 204(e)(2) (ii), consideration of a protest under § 203(a) is not a ground for staying thePage 49proceedings in the District Court, since the protest proceeding did not precede the suit in the District Court; and under the same provisions of the Act determination of the protest proceeding under § 203(a) can have no retroactive effect once the District Court has entered its judgment. But the opportunity for securing a decision from the Emergency Court through the protest proceeding before a judgment in the District Court is entered, has practical significance and makes this a living and not a hypothetical controversy.

On the merits the case is governed by our decision inUtahJunk Co. v.Porter. The petitioners in this case had a right to have their protests considered by the Administrator and, in case of denial, to resort to the Emergency Court of Appeals. The fact that Congress in 1944 gave a limited opportunity to go to the Emergency Court by leave of the District Court before which an enforcement proceeding is pending, § 204(e), neither repealed nor qualified the protest proceeding originally designed by § 203(a). The two modes of securing a hearing on the validity and applicability of the price regulation are cumulative and not alternative. The Administrator advances no argument to distinguish the case from that ofUtah Junk Co. v.Porter. His contention that the petitioners are not persons "subject to . . . [the] regulation," § 203(a), is amply refuted by the continuing liability of the petitioners,United Statesv.Hark,320 U.S. 531, for some $6,800,000, should their arguments as to the invalidity and inapplicability of the regulation be rejected when the case is considered on the merits.

It is superfluous to discuss other issues raised in this case.Judgment reversed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Page 50