Utah Junk Co v. Porter, No. 400

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFRANKFURTER
Citation90 L.Ed. 1071,328 U.S. 39,66 S.Ct. 889
PartiesUTAH JUNK CO. v. PORTER, Price Administrator
Docket NumberNo. 400
Decision Date22 April 1946

328 U.S. 39
66 S.Ct. 889
90 L.Ed. 1071
UTAH JUNK CO.

v.

PORTER, Price Administrator.

No. 400.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 26, 1946.
Decided April 22, 1946.

The 1944 amendment to Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, permitting a protest against any provision of a price schedule issued by the Price Administrator to be filed at any time after effective date of schedule, permits a right of protest which has expired through nonuser under the act of 1942. Emergency Price Control Act 1942, § 203, as amended by Stabilization Extension Act 1944, § 106, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 923.

The 1944 amendment to Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 permitting a protest against any provision of a price schedule issued by Price Administrator to be filed at any time after effective date of schedule authorizes a protest without a time limit against both a price schedule that is contemporaneously active and a price schedule that has been superseded, but continues to govern validity of transaction occurring while the schedule was in force. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 203, as amended by Stabilization Extension Act 1944, § 106, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 923.

Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Richard H. Field, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Page 40

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is one of a series of cases calling for the construction of amendments to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942.

Section 203 of the Act, 56 Stat. 23, 31, 50 U.S.C.App. § 923, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 923, confined within narrow limits the right to protest to the Administrator against a price schedule promulgated by him. The Stabilization Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 632, 638, 50 U.S.C.App. § 923, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 923, greatly liberalized this right to protest. The view taken by the United States Emergency Court of Appeals of the scope of this liberalization, 150 F.2d 963, based on its prior ruling in Thomas Paper Stock Co. v. Bowles, Em.App., 148 F.2d 831, led us to bring the case here. 328 U.S. 50, 66 S.Ct. 884.

The facts relevant to the immediate issue can be quickly stated. The Administrator established maximum prices for iron and steel scrap. Revised Price Schedule No. 4, 7 Fed.Reg. 1207 (February 21, 1942) This schedule, § 1304.13(f), id. at 1212, made no special provision for smelter fluxing scrap, scrap prepared for use in lead blast furnaces. Petitioner, a scrap dealer, operating in Utah, was engaged in the preparation and sale of fluxing scrap. Between April 25, 1942, and February 10, 1943, it sold a considerable amount of fluxing scrap to one of its customers, for which it was to be paid, in addition to the ceiling price for the scrap, $1.50 per ton for preparing the scrap. Inasmuch as the petitioner had been notified by the Office of Price Administration that such a charge was a violation of the Price Schedule, it merely billed its customer for the additional $1.50 per ton but abstained from collection it, so as to avoid the penal provisions of the Price Control Act.

The controversy concerns petitioner's lawful right to collect this processing charge as previously agreed upon

Page 41

between the parties to the contract. Claiming that the Price Schedule governing the sales in question was invalid insofar as it failed to permit an allowance for processing petitioners filed a protest with the Administrator. The Administrator and the Emergency Court of Appeals ruled that the protest came too late. It was timely, in any event, only if the amendment to § 203(a) of the Price Control Act of 1942 made by § 106 of the Stabilization Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 632, 638, can be invoked after the ground of objection to a price schedule had been prospectively removed.1 For the Administrator had completely met petitioner's objection by the time that the petitioner could avail itself of whatever enlarged right of protest the 1944 amendments conferred. The Administrator did so, in part, on December 21, 1943, by authorizing a Regional Office of the Price Administration to grant upon application an allowance of up to $1.50 per ton for processing scrap; and on June 30, 1944, the very day that the Act of 1944 became effective, the Schedule was revised to permit such a charge on all future sales of scrap. 9 Fed.Reg. 7330.

Page 42

This brings us to the controlling legislation. The procedure established by the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 authorized 'any person subject to any provision' of a price schedule issued by the Administrator to 'file a protest specifically setting forth objections to any such provision,' with a right of appeal to the Emergency Court of Appeals from denial of such protest by the Administrator. §§ 203(a) and 204(a), 56 Stat. 23, 31. But such protest had to be made 'within a period of sixty days after the effective date' of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 practice notes
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • June 3, 2010
    ...to have any effect at all, must be held to apply to the future''). \26\ For other U.S. Supreme Court cases, see Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44 (1946) (``literalness may strangle meaning''); Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409 (1945) (``The policy as well as the letter of the law ......
  • American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3882 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 7, 1991
    ...at 703. 74 Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 710, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1067, 8 L.Ed.2d 211, 215 (1962) (quoting Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44, 66 S.Ct. 889, 892, 90 L.Ed. 1071, 1074 (1946)). 75 5 U.S.C. § 7101(a)(1) (1988). 76 Id. § 7101(a)(2). 77 E.g., id. §§ 7111, 7113-7114, 7117. 7......
  • James v. U.S., Nos. 83-2276
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 16, 1985
    ...v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 710, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1067, 8 L.Ed.2d 211, 215 (1962) (citation omitted) (quoting Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44, 66 S.Ct. 889, 892, 90 L.Ed. 1071, 1074 (1946)). Those who work with words must rise above the "tyranny of literalness." United States v. Wit......
  • Spagnola v. Mathis, Nos. 84-5530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 6, 1987
    ..." Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 710, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1067, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962) (Harlan, J.) (quoting Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44, 66 S.Ct. 889, 892, 90 L.Ed. 1071 (1946)) (other citations omitted). In Griffin v. Breckenridge itself, the Court held that Congress intended an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
58 cases
  • American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3882 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 7, 1991
    ...at 703. 74 Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 710, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1067, 8 L.Ed.2d 211, 215 (1962) (quoting Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44, 66 S.Ct. 889, 892, 90 L.Ed. 1071, 1074 (1946)). 75 5 U.S.C. § 7101(a)(1) (1988). 76 Id. § 7101(a)(2). 77 E.g., id. §§ 7111, 7113-7114, 7117. 7......
  • James v. U.S., Nos. 83-2276
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 16, 1985
    ...v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 710, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1067, 8 L.Ed.2d 211, 215 (1962) (citation omitted) (quoting Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44, 66 S.Ct. 889, 892, 90 L.Ed. 1071, 1074 (1946)). Those who work with words must rise above the "tyranny of literalness." United States v. Wit......
  • Spagnola v. Mathis, Nos. 84-5530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 6, 1987
    ..." Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 710, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1067, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962) (Harlan, J.) (quoting Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44, 66 S.Ct. 889, 892, 90 L.Ed. 1071 (1946)) (other citations omitted). In Griffin v. Breckenridge itself, the Court held that Congress intended an......
  • State of Ariz. v. Manypenny, No. 77-3453
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 9, 1979
    ...meaning.' " Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. Page 1201 705, 710, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1067, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962) (quoting Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44, 66 S.Ct. 889, 90 L.Ed. 1071 (1946)). It is true that no court has ever interpreted section 3731 as providing for appeals by a state; on ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT