United States v. Dollar, 13130.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13130.,13130. |
| Citation | 193 F.2d 114 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DOLLAR et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Holmes Baldridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward H. Hickey and Donald B. MacGuineas, Attorneys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Philip H. Angell, Spc. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for United States.
Herman Phleger, Gregory A. Harrison, Moses Lasky, Alvin J. Rockwell, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison; Arthur B. Dunne; Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe and Chickering & Gregory, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees Dollar et al.
Warner W. Gardner, Washington, D. C., Edward G. Chandler, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curaie.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and POPE, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied January 7, 1952. See 72 S.Ct. 304.
This case is here on appeal by the United States from a summary judgment in favor of appellees, defendants below, to the effect that title to the stock of American President Lines is in the defendants. D.C., 100 F.Supp. 881. The United States has moved for an injunction to preserve the status quo pending appeal.
Briefly stated, the ground of the trial court's holding is that, by reason of the intervention of government counsel in the suit of Dollar v. Land, the United States is estopped to relitigate the issues determined in that suit by the district and appellate courts of the District of Columbia Circuit. This would seem to be but another way of saying that the judgments there rendered are res judicata as regards the claims of the government. The holding appears at war with the repeated pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the judgments entered in Dollar v. Land would not be res judicata against the United States. Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 736, 737, 739, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209; Land v. Dollar, 341 U.S. 737, 739, 71 S.Ct. 987, 95 L.Ed. 1331. That the Supreme Court was not unaware of the intervention of government counsel in those suits is evidenced by the remarks of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his separate memorandum in Land v. Dollar, 341 U.S. 737, 741, 71 S.Ct. 987, 990. He there said that "At every stage the Commissioners were represented by attorneys from the Department of Justice, who asserted as ground for dismissal that the action was a suit against the United States to which consent had not been given."
In this situation it is appropriate that a stay or supersedeas be granted. Counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Leiter Minerals
...Land v. Dollar, supra; Land v. Dollar, 341 U.S. 737, 71 S.Ct. 987, 95 L.Ed. 1331; United States v. Dollar, 9 Cir., 196 F.2d 551, 9 Cir., 193 F.2d 114, 9 Cir., 190 F.2d 547, D.C. Calif., 100 F.Supp. 881, D.C.Calif., 97 F.Supp. 50; Brown v. Wright, 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 484; United States v. McInt......
-
United States v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hear. Bd.
...United States v. Dollar, N.D.Cal.1951, 100 F. Supp. 881, the Court held: "As we pointed out on an earlier occasion, United States v. Dollar, 9 Cir., 193 F.2d 114, the ground of the judgment below is that by reason of the intervention of governmental counsel in the defense of the suit agains......
-
United States v. Sid-Mars Rest. & Lounge Inc., 09-30869
...U.S. 737 (1951); Dollar, 330 U.S. 731; Lee, 106 U.S. 196; United States v. Dollar, 196 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1952); United States v. Dollar, 193 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1952); Dollar v. United States, 190 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1951); Brown v. Wright, 137 F.2d 484 (4th Cir. 1943); United States v. McIn......
-
U.S. v. Sid–mars Rest. & Lounge Inc.
...67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209; Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240; United States v. Dollar, 196 F.2d 551 (9th Cir.1952); United States v. Dollar, 193 F.2d 114 (9th Cir.1952); Dollar v. United States, 190 F.2d 547 (9th Cir.1951); Brown v. Wright, 137 F.2d 484 (4th Cir.1943); United States v. McIn......