United States v. Californiacanneries, CO-OPERATIVE

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BRANDEIS
• Citation: 73 L.Ed. 838,279 U.S. 553,49 S.Ct. 423
• Decision Date: 20 May 1929
• Docket Number: No. 375,CO-OPERATIVE
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIACANNERIES

279 U.S. 553 49 S.Ct. 423 73 L.Ed. 838 UNITED STATES

v.

CALIFORNIA CO-OPERATIVE CANNERIES.

No. 375. Argued April 16, 1929. Decided May 20, 1929.

Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.

Mr. Nelson T. Hartson, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 553-555 intentionally omitted]

Page 555

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is a sequel to Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311, 48 S. Ct. 311, 72 L. Ed. 587, decided March 19, 1928. 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, 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 (15 USCA § 29), provides for a direct appeal to this court in suits in equity brought by the United States under the Anti-Trust Act (15 USCA §§ 1-7, 15) 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, 14 S. Ct. 4, 37 L. Ed. 986) was made upon motion of the California Co-operative

Page 556

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

On April 29, 1922, the Canneries made a motion for leave to file an intervening petition. The petition accompanying the motion alleged that the consent decree interferes with the performance by Armour & Co. of a contract theretofore made with it, by which Armour agreed to buy large quantities of California canned fruit. The petition charged that the decree is void because the Supreme Court of the District lacked jurisdiction; and it prayed that the decree be vacated. The Supreme Court denied leave to intervene. The Canneries appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court, so far as appears, did not consider the question whether, in view of the Expediting Act (15 USCA §§ 28, 29), it had jurisdiction on appeal. It did not refer to the decisions which hold that an order denying leave to intervene is not appealable, In re Cutting, 94 U. S. 15, 24 L. Ed. 49; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311, 20 S. Ct. 636, 44 L. Ed. 782; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578, 581, 32 S. Ct. 833, 56 L. Ed. 323; In re Engel-hard, 231 U. S. 646, 34 S. Ct. 358, 58 L. Ed. 416; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U. S. 219, 40 S. Ct. 511, 64 L. Ed. 870; New York v. New York Telephone Co., 261 U. S. 312, 43 S. Ct. 372, 67 L. Ed. 673, except where he who seeks to intervene has a direct and immediate interest in a res which is the subject of the suit, compare French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 524-526, 26 L. Ed. 951; Smith v. Gale, 144 U. S. 509, 12 S. Ct. 674, 36 L. Ed. 521; Leary v. United States, 224 U. S. 567, 32 S. Ct. 599, 56 L. Ed. 889, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1029; Swift v. Black Panther Oil & Gas Co. (C. C. A.) 244 F. 20, 30. Nor did it refer to the settled rule of practice that intervention will not be allowed for the purpose of impeaching a decree already made.¹ On June 2, 1924, it reversed the order of the

Page 557

Supreme Court, directed that leave to intervene be granted, and ordered that 'such further proceedings thereupon be had as are necessary to determine the issues raised.' California Co-operative Canneries v. United States, 55 App. D. C. 36, 299 F. 908. No such proceedings were ever taken.

So far as appears, the Supreme Court of the District has not been requested by the government since our decision in the Swift Case, to rescind the order of suspension. Instead the government, upon the coming down of our mandate, moved in the Court of Appeals that its judgment of June 2, 1924, directing that the Canneries have leave to intervene and ordering further proceedings, be vacated. That motion the...