Anderson v. Carder

• Decision Date: 20 July 1944
• Docket Number: 36200.
• Citation: 159 Kan. 1,150 P.2d 754
• Parties: ANDERSON v. CARDER (BOWLES, Administrator of Office of Price Administration, Intervener).
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

150 P.2d 754

159 Kan. 1

ANDERSON v. CARDER (BOWLES, Administrator of Office of Price Administration, Intervener).

No. 36200.

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 20, 1944

Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1944.

Syllabus by the Court.

Price Administrator is empowered to intervene in suit to set aside and enjoin enforcement of a judgment rendered in an inferior court and arising out of an alleged violation of Emergency Price Control Act. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 205 (d) (e), 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925 (d) (e).

A litigant who consented to an order of intervention could not thereafter complain concerning such order.

Ordinarily one cannot appeal from a judgment unless he has a particular interest therein and is aggrieved thereby, and such interest must ordinarily be immediate and pecuniary.

Appeals are not allowed for purpose of settling questions, however interesting or important to public generally, but only to correct errors injuriously affecting appellant.

A payment of costs by a defeated litigant discloses acquiescence in the judgment and cuts off right of appellate review in so far as such litigant is concerned.

Where defendant, in suit to set aside judgment he had previously obtained against plaintiff by reason of plaintiff's alleged violation of Emergency Price Control Act, acquiesced in judgment setting aside previous judgment, Price Administrator, as an intervener, could not appeal for purpose of obtaining rulings on abstract questions of law. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 205 (d) (e), 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925 (d) (e).

The record in an injunction suit instituted in the district court to set aside and enjoin the enforcement of a judgment rendered against plaintiff in the court of Topeka for violating Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, §§ 901, 925(e) examined, and held:

1. The voluntary payment of the judgment for costs by defendant in full satisfaction of the judgment rendered against him in the district court constitutes acquiescence in the judgment by the party aggrieved.

2. Such acquiescence leaves no issues to be litigated by the principal parties to the action and would preclude an appeal by the aggrieved defendant if he were appealing.

3. After such acquiescence in the judgment by the party aggrieved, this court will not entertain an appeal taken only by the intervenor, the administrator of the price control act, for the purpose of obtaining rulings on abstract questions of law.

Appeal from District Court, Shawnee County Division No. 2; Paul H Heinz, Judge.

Suit by C. W. Anderson against J. F. Carder to set aside and enjoin the enforcement of a judgment previously obtained by defendant against plaintiff pursuant to Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 205 (e), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e). Chester Bowles, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, intervened. Judgment was for the plaintiff defendant paid the costs assessed, and intervener appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

David London, of Washington, D. C., and James B. Nash, of Wichita (Thomas I. Emerson, Fleming James, Jr., and Edward H. Hatton all of Washington, D. C., and Ellis C. Clark, of Wichita, on the brief), for appellant.

Edward Rooney, of Topeka (Jacob A. Dickinson, of Topeka, on the brief), for appellee C. W. Anderson.

WEDELL Justice.

This was an injunction suit in the district court to set aside and enjoin the enforcement of a judgment defendant had obtained against the plaintiff in the court of Topeka pursuant to Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 901, 925(e). Plaintiff prevailed. The costs of the action were assessed against the defendant and he paid the judgment for costs. The intervenor, administrator of the office of price administration, alone appeals. The intervenor served notice of appeal upon the plaintiff and defendant but defendant is not participating in the appeal. Before reaching the merits of the case we are confronted with a motion of plaintiff, appellee, to dismiss the intervenor's appeal. The nature of the action and defense, as well as the motion filed by the intervenor, is disclosed by a summary of the pleadings. The amended petition, in substance, alleged:

The residence of plaintiff and defendant was Topeka; the defendant in the instant case, J. F. Carder, had filed a suit in the court of Topeka entitled, "J. F. Carder vs C. W. Anderson"; his bill of particulars in that action alleged:

"That on or about July 10, 1943, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant, one Servel Electric Refrigerator and which refrigerator was number R 10 F 100276 and that the plaintiff paid the defendant therefor the sum of $102.50 in United States currency.

"Plaintiff further alleges that the said refrigerator was not re-conditioned and carried no guarantee whatsoever and that plaintiff purchased said refrigerator 'as is.'

"That plaintiff further alleges that said sale was in violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as passed by the United States Congress and that said sale was in violation of Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 139 of the Office of Price Administration and Executive Order No. 9250 [50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 note].

"Plaintiff further alleges that the ceiling price on said refrigerator as set forth by the above mentioned act, ruling and order was $10.50 and that the defendant overcharged plaintiff the sum of $92.00 for said refrigerator.

"That by reason of said overcharge, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $92.00.

"Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant in the sum of $276.00 plus the costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney's fee and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and equitable."

The amended petition in the instant action further alleged:

"Plaintiff alleges that thereafter and on October 6, 1943 the Court of Topeka rendered judgment against this plaintiff in the sum of $276.00 and costs.

"Plaintiff further says; said judgment is illegal and void for the reason that the Court of Topeka is a Justice of the Peace Court and has no jurisdiction of the subject matter; that the judgment obtained by the defendant, J. F. Carder in the Court of Topeka is a judgment for penalties under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942.

"Plaintiff further alleges; the Courts of the State of Kansas have no jurisdiction to render penal judgments based on them laws of other jurisdictions, including the laws of the other 47 states, and the United States; and that the Courts of the State of Kansas are without jurisdiction to inflict penalties of other jurisdictions and that it appears from the face of the bill of particulars, upon which said judgment was based, that said judgment is a penal judgment inflicted upon this plaintiff for the violation of Price Regulation No. 139 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942."

Plaintiff, appellee, prayed to have the judgment of the court of Topeka declared a nullity and to have its enforcement enjoined. The defendant's answer admitted he had obtained the above described judgment but he denied it was void or illegal and affirmatively alleged the court of Topeka had jurisdiction to render it. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. It is not contended this motion did not raise every legal issue in the case and indeed it did. The motion was overruled. Approximately three weeks later but before judgment was formally entered the court, upon application of appellant to intervene and with consent of the parties, gave appellant leave to intervene. The intervenor filed the following motion:

"Comes now Chester Bowles, Administrator for the Office of Price Administration, intervenor in this above-entitled court and cause, and moves the court that a judgment be not entered in this case enjoining the defendant from enforcing the judgment in the case of J. F. Carder vs. C. W. Anderson, No. 56374, in the Court of Topeka, Kansas, and that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant J. F. Carder for the following reasons, to-wit:

"1. The judgment rendered in the Court of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, on September 20, 1943, in the case of J. F. Carder vs. C. W. Anderson, No. 56374, is

a valid judgment, upon which execution for its satisfaction should issue.

"2. The courts of the State of Kansas, including the Court of Topeka, have jurisdiction to enforce the Emergency Price Control Act and regulations passed pursuant thereto.

"3. The amended petition filed by the plaintiff herein does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant."

The motion was overruled. The district court declared the judgment of the court of Topeka null and void, set it aside, enjoined the defendant from attempting to collect it and rendered judgment against the defendant for the costs of the action. The defendant promptly paid the judgment. Thereafter the intervenor served notice of appeal from the order overruling his motion and from the judgment rendered.

Appellee has formally moved to dismiss the appeal in this court for the following reasons:

Appellant was not a proper intervenor in the injunction suit; he has no personal interest in the judgment rendered; he is not prejudiced or aggrieved thereby; the defendant, the real party in interest, is not appealing and the intervenor is not a proper party appellant.

Appellant contends: As administrator of the price control act he is authorized to intervene under the provisions of the act; the parties consented to his intervention; he has an interest in the question of the jurisdiction of the court of Topeka over the subject matter and in the enforcement of the price...