Wallace v. Cutten
| Decision Date | 18 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 747,747 |
| Citation | 80 L.Ed. 1157,298 U.S. 229,56 S.Ct. 753 |
| Parties | WALLACE et al. v. CUTTEN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Wendell Berge, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 230-233 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 6(b) of the Grain Futures Act, September 21, 1922, c. 369, 42 Stat. 998, 1001 (7 U.S.C.A. § 9), provides that if the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that any person 'is violating' any provision of the act, or any rules and regulations made pursuant thereto, or 'is attempting' to manipulate the market price of grain in violation of the provisions of the act, the Secretary may serve upon the person a complaint stating his charge in that respect and requiring him 'to show cause why an order should not be made directing that all contract markets until further notice of the said commission refuse all trading privileges thereon to such person.' The commission referred to is a board 'composed of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Attorney General' (section 6(a), 7 U.S.C.A. § 8), before whom the hearing on the complaint is had. This case is here to review a decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which set aside an order entered by the commission under that section. Certiorari was granted (297 U.S. 701, 56 S.Ct. 596, 80 L.Ed. 990) on account of the novelty and importance of the question presented.
April 11, 1934, the Secretary of Agriculture caused such a complaint to be served upon Arthur W. Cutten. It recited that during the years 1930 and 1931 he was, and since had been, continuously a member of the Chicago Board of Trade; and that by its regulations made pursuant to the Grain Futures Act he was required 'to report to the Grain Futures Administration his net position in futures owned or controlled by him, long or short, by grain and by future, when he had net open commitments in any one future equal to or in excess of 500,000 bushels; * * *' (and also) 'daily trades made by him on the Board of Trade, in futures in which he owned or controlled open commitments equal to or in excess of 500,000 bushels.'
The complaint alleged further that:
etc.
Then followed, in 44 numbered paragraphs, specifications of Cutten's alleged violations of the regulations and the act on dates between March 6, 1930, and December 31, 1931.
A referee was appointed to take the evidence. The hearings before him began on May 14, 1934. Upon the opening of those proceedings, Cutten moved to quash the complaint on the ground that section 6(b) empowered the commission to act only against persons who are presently committing offenses; and that consequently it had no authority to deny to him trading privileges for violations committed more than two years prior to the institution of the proceedings against him. The referee, without passing upon the motion to quash, proceeded to take the evidence; the hearings before him were concluded May 24, 1934; then the commission heard the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. Brown
...penal and not remedial and Congress had conferred no power to punish. They were influenced by the decisions in Wallace v. Cutten, 298 U.S. 229, 56 S.Ct. 753, 80 L.Ed. 1157, and United States v. La Franca, 282 U.S. 568, 51 S.Ct. 278, 75 L.Ed. 551. I feel that such an order is primarily remed......
-
Securities and Exchange Commission v. United States Realty Improvement Co
...44, 77 L.Ed. 175; Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 89, 56 S.Ct. 70, 72, 80 L.Ed. 62; Wallace v. Cutten, 298 U.S. 229, 237, 56 S.Ct. 753, 754, 80 L.Ed. 1157; Osaka Shosen Line v. United States, 300 U.S. 98, 101, 57 S.Ct. 356, 357, 81 L.Ed. 532; Palmer v. Massachusetts, ......
-
Howard v. United States
...by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function." Wallace v. Cutten, 298 U.S. 229, 56 S.Ct. 753, 754, 80 L.Ed. 157; Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 250, 251, 46 S.Ct. 248, 70 L.Ed. 566. Some states expressly exonerate the deposi......
-
People v. Francis
...by inadvertence, may be includedwithin its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function." (Wallace v. Cutten, 298 U.S. 229, 56 S. Ct. 753, 80 L. Ed. 1157.) [24] Council for the government has also pressed upon the Court the argument that contemporary and long established admi......