319 U.S. 302 (1943), 840, United States v. Johnson

Docket Nº:No. 840
Citation:319 U.S. 302, 63 S.Ct. 1075, 87 L.Ed. 1413
Party Name:United States v. Johnson
Case Date:May 24, 1943
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 302

319 U.S. 302 (1943)

63 S.Ct. 1075, 87 L.Ed. 1413

United States

v.

Johnson

No. 840

United States Supreme Court

May 24, 1943

Argued May 11, 12, 1943

[63 S.Ct. 1075] APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Syllabus

Upon the fact of this case, the District Court should have granted the Government's motion to dismiss the suit as collusive. P. 305.

48 F.Supp. 833, vacated.

APPEAL from the dismissal of a complaint in a suit in which the United States had intervened and in which the District Court held unconstitutional the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942.

Per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

One Roach, a tenant of residential property belonging to appellee, brought this suit in the district court alleging that the property was within a "defense rental area" established by the Price Administrator pursuant to §§ 2(b) and 302(d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23; that the Administrator had promulgated Maximum Rent Regulation No. 8 for the area, and that the rent paid by Roach and collected by appellee was in

Page 303

excess of the maximum fixed by the regulation. The complaint demanded judgment for treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees, as prescribed by § 205(e) of the Act. The United States, intervening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 401, filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the Act, which appellee had challenged by motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground -- as appears from its opinion (48 F.Supp. 833) and judgment -- that the Act and the promulgation of the regulation under it were unconstitutional because Congress, by the Act, had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Administrator.

[63 S.Ct. 1076] Before entry of the order dismissing the complaint, the Government moved to reopen the case on the ground that it was collusive, and did not involve a real case or controversy. This motion was denied. The Government brings the case here on appeal under § 2 of the Act of August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. 752, 28 U.S.C. § 349a, and assigns as error both the ruling of the district court on the constitutionality of the Act and its refusal to reopen and dismiss the case as collusive.

The appeal of the plaintiff Roach to this Court was also allowed by the district court, and is now pending. But...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP