279 U.S. 553 (1929), 375, United States v. California Cooperative Canneries

Docket Nº:No. 375
Citation:279 U.S. 553, 49 S.Ct. 423, 73 L.Ed. 838
Party Name:United States v. California Cooperative Canneries
Case Date:May 20, 1929
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 553

279 U.S. 553 (1929)

49 S.Ct. 423, 73 L.Ed. 838

United States

v.

California Cooperative Canneries

No. 375

United States Supreme Court

May 20, 1929

Argued April 16, 1929

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

1. Judicial notice is taken of proceedings in the trial court shown by the record of the case in this Court at all earlier stages. P. 555.

2. Under the Expediting Act of Feb. 11, 1903, in suits in equity under the Anti-Trust Act "in which the United States is complainant," appeal must be direct to this Court from the final decree of the trial court. P. 558.

3. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia had no jurisdiction over an appeal by a private person from an order of the Supreme Court of the District refusing leave to intervene in a suit brought by the United States under the Anti-Trust Act. P. 559.

299 F. 908 reversed.

Certiorari, 278 U.S. 592, to review an order of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia refusing to set aside its earlier one, which reversed an order of the Supreme Court of the District denying a petition to intervene in a suit under the Anti-Trust Act. See Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311.

Page 555

BRANDEIS, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is a sequel to Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311. It is here by writ of certiorari for the determination of a question which arose upon the going down of the mandate in the Swift case.

The suit was commenced by the government in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on February 27, 1920, against the leading packers to prevent a long feared monopoly in meat and other food products. On that day, a consent decree was entered. Nearly five years later, two of the defendants, [49 S.Ct. 424] Swift & Co. and Armour & Co., filed in the cause motions to vacate that decree. From the denial of those motions, appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals for the District. That court certified questions to us. We ordered the entire record sent here, and then held that, because the Expediting Act of February 11, 1903, c. 544, § 2, 32 Stat. 823, provides for a direct appeal to this Court in suits in equity brought by the United States under the Anti-Trust Act, the court of appeals was without jurisdiction. We also held that the Supreme Court of the District had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, and that the consent decree entered by it was in all respects valid and enforceable. Its order denying the motions to vacate the consent decree was therefore affirmed.

An obstacle to the enforcement of the consent decree remains. An order of the Supreme Court of the District, entered May 1, 1925, suspends the operation of the consent decree as a whole "until further order of the court to be made, if at all, after a full hearing on the merits according to the usual course of chancery proceedings." That order (as we know judicially from our own records, Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31, 38) was made upon motion of the California Cooperative

Page 556

Canneries, which, long after the entry of the consent decree was allowed to intervene under the following circumstances.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP