Land v. Dollar, 10868
Decision Date | 31 January 1951 |
Docket Number | 10875,No. 10868,No. 10876.,10868,10876. |
Parties | LAND et al. v. DOLLAR et al. UNITED STATES v. DOLLAR et al. SAWYER, Secretary of Commerce, v. DOLLAR et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Newell A. Clapp, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Edward H. Hickey, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellants.
Messrs. Gregory A. Harrison, Moses Lasky, San Francisco, Cal., and Clinton M. Hester, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 12, 1951. See 71 S.Ct. 533.
These are three appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court pursuant to our mandate of November 17, 1950. This is the third time this controversy has been here.
Dollar, et al. brought a civil action praying that the defendant members of the Maritime Commission be restrained from selling or disposing of certain stock and "That the defendants be directed and ordered by this Court to deliver to the plaintiffs the following stock: * * *." In response to a motion for a preliminary injunction the defendants submitted affidavits representing that the stock had been transferred outright to the United States and that the suit was, therefore, one against the United States. The trial court thereupon dismissed the action. This court reversed that judgment,1 and the Supreme Court, granting certiorari, affirmed.2 The question there was how the court should proceed when confronted with a claim by private persons for the delivery to them of property which Government agents claim to hold on behalf of the United States. The issue as to whether the United States is a necessary party to such an action depends upon whether the United States in fact owns the property. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction depends upon the merits. The Supreme Court held that in order to determine jurisdiction the court must determine the merits to that extent. The Court discussed the Lee case3 and pointed out that while an adjudication to which the United States is not a party cannot be res judicata against the United States "the courts have jurisdiction to resolve the controversy between those who claim possession."4 In one succinct paragraph the Court prescribed the disposition of the case then before it and now before us. It said:
5
The result, which is inescapable from the very nature of the controversy, is paradoxical. In an action between a private individual and a public official, the court decides that the United States has no interest in the property involved and so the action will lie, but the ensuing judgment is effective only as to the parties before the court and is not res judicata against the United States, not a party.
The case was returned to the District Court, was tried, 82 F.Supp. 919, and was appealed to this court, and it was here held that (1) the Commission had no power to acquire outright ownership of the stock and (2) the plaintiffs were pledgors.6 The Supreme Court denied certiorari.7 Therefore, as the Supreme Court directed in the opinion from which we have quoted above, the plaintiffs "are entitled to possession of the shares as against" the defendant officials. We directed the District Court to enter judgment pursuant to our opinion.
Upon the remand the District Court entered an order and final judgment as follows:
The present appeals are from that judgment. Appellants contend that the District Court did not enter the judgment which the Supreme Court said would follow from the allegations of the complaint, if proved, but went further and purported to determine the title to the shares of stock as against all the world, which, in effect, say appellants, is an attempt to make the judgment res judicata against the United States.
The second paragraph of the judgment of the District Court is modified to read as follows:
The District Court is directed to enter judgment in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Dollar, 30407.
...28, 154 F.2d 307; Id., 330 U.S. 731, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209; Id., D.C., 82 F. Supp. 919; Id., D.C.Cir., 184 F.2d 245; Id., D.C.Cir., 188 F.2d 629; Id., D.C.Cir., 190 F.2d 366; Id., D.C.Cir., 190 F.2d 623. We see no reason to repeat them I. Has This Court Jurisdiction? We have been met......
-
Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 01-7101.
...motion to compel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b); see also Chase v. Pan-Pacific Broad. Inc., 750 F.2d 131 (D.C.Cir.1984). Cf. Land v. Dollar, 188 F.2d 629, 632 (D.C.Cir.1951). Neither could the filing of the Statement of Interest suffice to make the United States a de facto intervenor, assuming the......
-
Sawyer v. Dollar
...were present. Attorneys for the Dollar interests were also present and read to the meeting excerpts from our opinion of January 31, 1951, 188 F.2d 629, and read in its entirety the District Court's order on mandate entered March 16, 1951. They presented proxies executed by the Dollar intere......
-
Land v. Dollar, 10955
...to possession of the shares, and we directed the District Court to enter an order which we prescribed in exact terms. Land v. Dollar, 88 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 188 F.2d 629. That decree, as included in our mandate, was that the Maritime Commission, or its successor in possession, deliver to the ......