Pine Hill Coal Co v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 May 1922
• Docket Number: No. 101,101
• Citation: 259 U.S. 191,42 S.Ct. 482,66 L.Ed. 894
• Parties: PINE HILL COAL CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

259 U.S. 191

42 S.Ct. 482

66 L.Ed. 894

PINE HILL COAL CO., Inc.,

v UNITED STATES.

No. 101.

Argued Jan. 20, 1922.

Decided May 29, 1922.

Mr. Henry S. Drinker, Jr., of Philadephia, Pa., for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 191-193 intentionally omitted] Mr. Assistant Attorney General Riter, for the United States.

Mr. Justice HOLMESdelivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, like Morrisdale Coal Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 188, 42 Sup. Ct. 481, 66 L. Ed. ——, is a claim based upon the action of the Fuel Administration under the Act of August 10, 1917, c. 53, § 25,40 Stat. 276, 284(Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8 q), fixing prices for coal.The allegations and arguments however are different.The transactions of the claimant from and including September, 1917, through January, 1919, are set forth in detail.They embrace large sales at government prices and smaller sales at other than those prices.It is alleged that the prices fixed for the claimant's coal were unjust and unreasonable and did not afford just compensation, and that as a result of keeping to them, as the claimant did, the receipts were actually less than the cost of production.On these facts the petition sets up a contract of indemnity on the part of the United States arising out of the language to be quoted from section 25.It was dismissed on demurrer by the Court of Claims.

The paragraph of section 25 that is relied upon follows paragraphs giving authority to the President personally or through the Federal Trade Commission to fix the price of coal and coke, to regulate the method of distribution among dealers and consumers during the war, and if a producer or dealer neglects to conform to such prices or regulations, etc., to take over the plant and business, paying a just compensation.The paragraph in question reads:

'That if the prices so fixed, or if, in the case of the taking over or requisitioning of the mines or business of any such producer or dealer the compensation therefor as determined by the provisions of this Act be not satisfactory to the person or persons entitled to receive the same, such person shall be paid seventy-five per centum of the amount so determined, and shall be entitled to sue the United States to recover such further sum as, added to said seventy-five per centum, will make up such amount as will be just compensation in the manner provided by section twenty-four, paragraph twenty, and section one hundred and forty-five of the Judicial Code.'

The latter section of the Judicial Code(Comp. St. § 1136) is the one that gives jurisdiction to the Court of Claims and the former that which gives a limited concurrent jurisdiction to the District Courts.

It is obvious that the words as they stand cannot be applied to sales by producers to third persons; for it would be absurd to suppose that the United States undertook to pay...