Walling v. James Reuter, No. 436

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTONE
Citation321 U.S. 671,88 L.Ed. 1001,64 S.Ct. 826
Docket NumberNo. 436
Decision Date10 April 1944
PartiesWALLING, Administrator of Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, v. JAMES V. REUTER, Inc

321 U.S. 671
64 S.Ct. 826
88 L.Ed. 1001
WALLING, Administrator of Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor,

v.

JAMES V. REUTER, Inc.

No. 436.
Argued March 10, 1944.
Decided April 10, 1944.

Page 672

Mr. Douglas B. Maggs, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Frank S. Normann, of New Orleans, La., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner brought this suit pursuant to § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of June 25, 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., to restrain respondent, a Louisiana corporation, from violating the Act. The District Court found violations of §§ 6, 7, 15(a)(1)(2) and (5) of the Act and gave judgment permanently restraining respondent, 'its agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons acting or claiming to act in its behalf or interest' from further violations. On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, 137 F.2d 315, and remanded the cause to the District Court for further proceedings. This Court granted certiorari, 320 U.S. 731, 64 S.Ct. 205.

The present proceeding is a motion to recall the writ of certiorari, submitted by the attorney who has appeared for respondent in this Court and in the two courts below. His motion is based upon the affidavit of James V. Reuter, described as the former president of the respondent corporation, from which it appears that on December 15, 1943, shortly after this Court had granted certiorari, Reuter and two others, being all the stockholders of respondent, duly

Page 673

signed a consent that the corporation be dissolved and that Reuter be designated its liquidator; and that one day later, on December 16, 1943, Reuter, as liquidator, certified that the corporation had been 'completely would up and is dissolved'. Upon filing the consent and certificate with the Secretary of State, with proof of publication of the notice of dissolution, the Secretary of State issued his certificate of December 31, 1943, certifying that the corporation 'stands dissolved'. See § 54 of Act 250 of the Louisiana Legislature of 1928 as amended by § 1 of Act 65 of 1932, and §§ 62 and 64 of Act 250 of the Louisiana Legislature of 1928. The purpose of the dissolution is stated to have been to secure tax advantages.

In support of the motion it is argued that since the corporation is, by Louisiana law, now dissolved without any prolongation of its life for the purpose of continuing pending litigation against it, see McCoy v. State Line Oil & Gas Co., 180 La. 579, 583, 157 So. 116, the case has become moot; and further that, for want of a party respondent, this Court is without power to render any effective judgment in the appellate proceeding now pending before it.1

In the present posture of the case we think it plain that the moving papers fail to establish that the case is moot

Page 674

or has abated merely because of the dissolution of the corporate defendant. See United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290, 307-310, 17 S.Ct. 540, 546, 547, 41 L.Ed. 1007; cf. Southern Pac. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm., 219 U.S. 433, 452, 31 S.Ct. 288, 294, 55 L.Ed. 283; Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm., 219 U.S. 498, 514-516, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 284, 55 L.Ed. 310; Leonard and Leonard v. Earle, 279 U.S. 392, 398, 49 S.Ct. 372, 374, 73 L.Ed. 754. The judgment rendered by the District Court determined, subject only to resort to the prescribed appellate review of the judgment, the right of the administrator to an injunction restraining the corporation and those associated or identified with it from violating the statute. Not only is such an injunction enforcible by contempt proceedings against the corporation, its agents and officers and those individuals associated with it in the conduct of its business, Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 376, 377, 31 S.Ct. 538, 542, 543, 55 L.Ed. 771, Ann.Cas.1912D, 558; cf. In re Lennon, 166 U.S. 548, 17 S.Ct. 658, 41 L.Ed. 1110, but it may also, in appropriate circumstances, be enforced against those to whom the business may have been transferred, whether as a means of evading the judgment or for other reasons. The vitality of the judgment in such a case survives the dissolution of the corporate defendant. Southport Petroleum Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 315 U.S. 100, 106, 107, 62 S.Ct. 452, 455, 456, 86 L.Ed. 718. And see, to like effect, National Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 2 Cir., 104 F.2d 302, 304, 305; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Western New York & P.R. Co., C.C., 82 F. 192, 194, 195; Morton v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. 496, 4 P. 489; Katenkamp v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 696, 108 P.2d 1; City of New York, Mayor v. New York & S. I. Ferry Co., 64 N.Y. 622; Farmers Fertilizer Co. v. Ruh, 7 Ohio App. 430; Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. McKelvey Hughes Co., 64 Pa.Super. 57, 61, 62; cf. Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 832, 833; National Labor Relations Board v. Colten, 6 Cir., 105 F.2d 179, 183; Union Drawn Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir.,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 practice notes
  • Babbitt Engineering & MacHinery v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1984
    ...Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood R. Co. (2d Cir.1938) 98 F.2d 97, (2d Cir.1939) 104 F.2d 302, 304; and Walling v. James V. Reuter, 321 U.S. 671, 64 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed. 1 No formal appearance was ever made by San Marcos, but at the hearings before the Board it was assumed by both parties San......
  • Friends of the Earth Inc. v Laidlaw Environmental Serv., 98822
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 12, 2000
    ...act of a nonprevailing party ordinarily does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review); see also Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671 (1944). Justice Stevens, concurring. Although the Court has identified a sufficient reason for rejecting the Court of Appeals' mootness deter......
  • Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of Bahá'ís of U.S. Under Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual A, No. 08-2306
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • December 29, 2010
    ...Golden State Bottling Co., 414 U.S. 168, 94 S.Ct. 414; Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14-15, 65 S.Ct. 478; Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671, 64 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed. 1001 (1944); Reich, 50 F.3d 413; Panther Pumps & Equip. Co. v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8 (7th Cir.1977); see also......
  • Hart v. Community Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn, NY Sch. D.# 21, No. 72 C 1041.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 2, 1974
    ...R. Co. v. Systems Federation, 300 U.S. 515, 552 57 S.Ct. 592, 601, 81 L.Ed. 789 (1937); see Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., supra, 321 U.S. 671 at 674-675 64 S.Ct. 826, at 827, 88 L.Ed. 1001. We hold that a bona fide purchaser, acquiring, with knowledge that the wrong remains unremedied, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
97 cases
  • Babbitt Engineering & MacHinery v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1984
    ...Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood R. Co. (2d Cir.1938) 98 F.2d 97, (2d Cir.1939) 104 F.2d 302, 304; and Walling v. James V. Reuter, 321 U.S. 671, 64 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed. 1 No formal appearance was ever made by San Marcos, but at the hearings before the Board it was assumed by both parties San......
  • Friends of the Earth Inc. v Laidlaw Environmental Serv., 98822
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 12, 2000
    ...act of a nonprevailing party ordinarily does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review); see also Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671 (1944). Justice Stevens, concurring. Although the Court has identified a sufficient reason for rejecting the Court of Appeals' mootness deter......
  • Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of Bahá'ís of U.S. Under Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual A, No. 08-2306
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • December 29, 2010
    ...Golden State Bottling Co., 414 U.S. 168, 94 S.Ct. 414; Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14-15, 65 S.Ct. 478; Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671, 64 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed. 1001 (1944); Reich, 50 F.3d 413; Panther Pumps & Equip. Co. v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8 (7th Cir.1977); see also......
  • Hart v. Community Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn, NY Sch. D.# 21, No. 72 C 1041.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 2, 1974
    ...R. Co. v. Systems Federation, 300 U.S. 515, 552 57 S.Ct. 592, 601, 81 L.Ed. 789 (1937); see Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., supra, 321 U.S. 671 at 674-675 64 S.Ct. 826, at 827, 88 L.Ed. 1001. We hold that a bona fide purchaser, acquiring, with knowledge that the wrong remains unremedied, ......
  • 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