Woods v. Witzke, 10797.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1949
• Docket Number: No. 10797.,10797.
• Citation: 174 F.2d 855
• Parties: WOODS, Housing Expediter, v. WITZKE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

174 F.2d 855 (1949)

WOODS, Housing Expediter, v. WITZKE.

No. 10797.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 11, 1949.

On Rehearing June 17, 1949.

Benjamin I. Shulman, of Washington, D. C. (Ed Dupree, Hugo V. Prucha, and Benjamin I. Shulman all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Ed Witzke, in pro. per.

Appellee not represented.

Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and SIMONS and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

SIMONS, Circuit Judge.

Upon a complaint that the appellee, owner of housing accommodations in Detroit, exacted from the tenant rents in excess of the maximum legal rate, the appellant sought restitution to recover $291, being the total amount of the over-charges collected, also a judgment for $78 as treble damages for the excess collected within the year preceding the filing of the complaint, and a permanent injunction enjoining the appellee from demanding and receiving excess rents. The appellee failed to answer and was defaulted. The judgment granted the injunction and awarded the Expediter statutory damages. It was silent as to the prayer for restitution.

While the amounts here involved are negligible the Expediter appeals to avoid the creation of a precedent. We have no means of knowing why the district court failed to grant restitution. If it was in doubt as to its power that doubt is now resolved by our decision in Bowles v. Skaggs, 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 817, and Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 66 S. Ct. 1086, 1090, 90 L.Ed. 1332. Restitution which lies within the equitable jurisdiction of the court is consistent with and differs greatly from the damages which may be awarded under § 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925(a). As the court said in Porter v. Warner Holding Co., supra, "Future compliance may be more definitely assured if one is compelled to restore one's illegal gains; and the statutory policy of preventing inflation is plainly advanced if prices or rents which have been collected in the past are reduced to their legal maximums."

While a one year period of limitation is established in respect to statutory treble damages by § 205(e) this provision is not applicable to equitable restitution sought under § 205(a). Co-Efficient Foundation, Inc., v. Woods, 171 F.2d 691; Blood v. Fleming, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 292. An appeal to the equity jurisdiction of federal district courts is, of course, an appeal to the sound discretion which guides the determination of courts of equity, Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754, 5 Cir., but the principle that governs the exercise of the court's jurisdiction is that "a court of equity will order one to do what in good conscience he should do," Blood v. Fleming, supra 161 F.2d 296, and "courts must act primarily to effectuate the policy of the Emergency Price Control Act and to protect the public interest while giving necessary respect to the private interests involved." Porter v. Warner Holding Co., supra.

The award of treble damages must necessarily have been based upon a finding that the violation was wilful. That being so it would seem that the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, should have granted restitution to the full amount of the excess rent collected. We are of the view, however, that the Expediter may not have both restitution and statutory damages. While in the usual case the latter will be the stronger deterrent, that is not so here. The cause is reversed and remanded to the district court...