United States v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 24 May 1943
• Docket Number: No. 840,840
• Citation: United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302, 63 S.Ct. 1075, 87 L.Ed. 1413 (1943)
• Parties: UNITED STATES et al. v. JOHNSON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

319 U.S. 302

63 S.Ct. 1075

87 L.Ed. 1413

UNITED STATES et al.

v JOHNSON.

No. 840.

Argued May 11, 12, 1943.

Decided May 24, 1943.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Indiana.

Mr. Paul A. Freund, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Vernon M. Welsh, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

One Roach, a tenant of residential property belonging to appellee, brought this suit in the district court alleging that the property was within a 'defense rental area' established by the Price Administrator pursuant to §§ 2(b)and302(d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 902(b),942(d); that the Administrator had promulgated Maximum Rent RegulationNo. 8 for the area; and that the rent paid by Roach and collected by appellee was in excess of the maximum fixed by the regulation.The complaint demanded judgment for treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees, as prescribed by § 205(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e).The United States, intervening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 401,28 U.S.C.A. § 401, filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the Act, which appellee had challenged by motion to dismiss.The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground—as appears from its opinion (48 F.Supp. 833) and judgment—that the Act and the promulgation of the regulation under it were unconstitutional because Congress by the Act had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Administrator.

Before entry of the order dismissing the complaint, the Government moved to reopen the case on the ground that it was collusive and did not involve a real case or controversy.This motion was denied.The Government brings the case here on appeal under § 2 of the Act of August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. 752,28 U.S.C. § 349a,28 U.S.C.A. § 349a, and assigns as error both the ruling of the district court on the constitutionality of the Act, and its refusal to reopen and dismiss the case as collusive.

The appeal of the plaintiff Roach to this Court was also allowed by the district court and is now pending.But his appeal has not been docketed here because of his neglect to comply with the Rules of this Court.As the record is now before us on the Government's appeal, we have directed that the two appeals be consolidated and heard as one case.We accordingly find it unnecessary to consider the question which we requested counsel to discuss (see63 S.Ct. 860, 87 L.Ed. —-), 'whether any case or controversy exists reviewable in this Court, in the absence of an appeal by the partyplaintiff defeated in the district court'.

The affidavit of the plaintiff, submitted by the Government on its motion to dismiss the suit as collusive, shows without contradiction that he brought the present pro- ceeding in a fictitious name; that it was instituted as a 'friendly suit' at appellee's request; that the plaintiff did not employ, pay, or even meet, the attorney who appeared of record in his behalf; that he had no knowledge who paid the $15 filing fee in the district court, but was assured by appellee that as plaintiffhe would incur no expense in bringing the suit; that he did not read the complaint which was filed in his name as plaintiff; that in his conferences with the appellee and appellee's attorney of record, nothing was said concerning treble damages and he had no knowledge of the amount of the judgment prayed until he read of it in a local newspaper.

Appellee's counter-affidavit did not deny these allegations.It admitted that appellee's attorney had undertaken to procure an attorney to represent the plaintiff and had assured the plaintiff that his presence in court during the trial of the cause would not be necessary.It appears from the district court's opinion that no brief was filed on the plaintiff's behalf in that court.

The Government does not contend that, as a result of this cooperation of the two original parties to the litigation, any false or fictitious state of facts was submitted to the court.But it does insist that the affidavits disclose the absence of a genuine adversary issue between the parties, without which a court may not safely proceed to judgment, especially when it assumes the grave responsibility...