Source: https://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/340/616/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-07-16 04:20:01
Document Index: 536240786

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 206', '§ 205', '§ 204', '§ 205', '§ 205', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 205', '§ 204', '§ 1881', '§ 206']

The United States brings this action under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, [Footnote 1] to obtain damages for violations of the Act and restitution of overceiling rentals collected. The question is whether, under § 206(b) of the Act, a landlord may be ordered to make restitution of overceiling rentals where a prohibitory injunction is not required because the defense rental area was decontrolled after the violations, but before the Government brought suit.
Respondents are landlords of housing accommodations in Dallas, Texas. Between October 1, 1947, and May 31, 1949, they demanded and received rents in excess of those allowed by the applicable maximum rent regulation [Footnote 2] issued under the Act. This action was begun in Federal District Court on June 29, 1949, pursuant to §§ 205 [Footnote 3] and 206(b) [Footnote 4] of the Act. The complaint, by its terms, sought a prohibitory injunction, restitution of all overcharges, and statutory damages. Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that, on June 23, 1949, six days prior to filing of the complaint, the Housing Expediter, pursuant to action taken by the City of Dallas under § 204(j)(3) of the Act, terminated rent control in that city; that this act of the Expediter terminated as to Dallas all provisions of Title II of the Act, including the remedial provisions under which this suit is brought, and that no saving clause was applicable. The District Court denied the motion. Respondents did not demand a jury. A trial to chanrobles.com-red
the court concluded in a judgment for the Government, allowing statutory damages of $50 for a willful violation and ordering restitution to the tenant of all overcharges received. On appeal by respondents, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. 182 F.2d 332 (1950). It held that the Government has a right of action solely for statutory damages under § 205, and remanded for new trial on this issue. A dismissal was directed insofar as the complaint seeks injunctive relief and restitution. The Government, asserting conflict with Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395 (1946), petitioned for review here only of the court's denial of restitution. We granted certiorari. 340 U.S. 890 (1950). [Footnote 5]
The Court of Appeals recognized that restitution of overceiling rentals may be ordered as ancillary to injunctive relief against violations of the Act or regulations. However, as petitioner conceded that it has no right to an injunction when rent control has been lawfully terminated, the court concluded that "there remained no proceeding of which equity would have jurisdiction to which restitution could be adjunctive," and that restitution "was neither appropriate nor issuable." 182 F.2d 336.
"the United States may make application to any . . . court of competent jurisdiction for an order enjoining such acts or practices, or for an order enforcing compliance with such provision, and upon a showing that such person has
engaged or is about to engage in any such acts or practices a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without bond."
Both parties rely, as did the Court of Appeals, on the decision of this Court in Porter v. Warner Holding Co., supra, which construed § 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. This provision was the source of § 206(b) of the 1947 Act, and the two sections are, for present purposes, identical. The complaint in the Warner case sought injunctive relief against violations and restitution of overcharges. The lower courts allowed the injunction, but denied restitution. This Court reversed, concluding that an order of restitution was a proper "other order." This interpretation was required to give effect to the congressional purpose to authorize whatever order within the inherent equitable power of the District Court may be considered appropriate and necessary to enforce compliance with the Act. The Court said that the section
328 U.S. at 328 U. S. 400. Thus, an equitable decree of restitution would be within the section if it was reasonably appropriate and necessary to enforce compliance with the Act and effectuate its purposes.
Adhering to the broad ground of interpretation of the "other orders" provision adopted in the Warner case, we chanrobles.com-red
think the order for restitution entered by the District Court in this action was permissible under § 206(b). Such a decree clearly enforces compliance with the Act and regulations for the period in which respondents demanded and received excess rentals. If the provision in § 206(b) for orders enforcing compliance had been intended merely to insure subsequent obedience to rent regulations while in effect in a defense rental area, it would have been unnecessary to authorize orders for other than injunctive relief, since the latter remedy is wholly adequate to secure prospective compliance. See Ebeling v. Woods, 175 F.2d 242, 244 (1949). [Footnote 6]
Two contentions advanced by respondents require brief consideration. It is argued that termination of rent control in respondents' defense rental area ended the legal effect of §§ 205 and 206 under which the action was instituted. Respondents rely here upon the literal provision of § 204(j)(3) that "[t]he Housing Expediter shall chanrobles.com-red
terminate the provisions of this title" upon the taking of appropriate action by the city. We think a sufficient answer is s 204(f), set out in the margin; [Footnote 7] it provides for the survival of rights and liabilities incurred prior to the expiration of the title on either the date specified by Congress in the Act or such date as the President or Congress might later determine.
61 Stat. 193, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App.(Supp. III) § 1881 et seq.
It has uniformly been the view of the lower federal courts that restitution of overcharges may be ordered under § 206(b) of the 1947 Act and like provisions whether or not injunctive relief is sought or is permissible at the time of the order. Woods v. Wayne, 177 F.2d 559 (1949); Creedon v. Randolph, 165 F.2d 918 (1948); Jackson v. Woods, 182 F.2d 338 (1950); Bowles v. Skaggs, 151 F.2d 817 (1945); Warner Holding Co. v. Creedon, 166 F.2d 119 (1948); Ebeling v. Woods, 175 F.2d 242 (1949); Woods v. Richman, 174 F.2d 614 (1949); Woods v. Gochnour, 177 F.2d 964 (1949); Emery v. United States, 186 F.2d 900 (1951); United States v. Mashburn, 85 F.Supp. 968 (1949); United States v. Cowen's Estate, 91 F.Supp. 331 (1950); see Woods v. Wolfe, 182 F.2d 516, 518-519 (1950). Only the court below in this proceeding has concluded that restitution must be denied in such cases because an injunction could not have been obtained when the complaint was filed. Compare Ebeling v. Woods, supra, and Woods v. Richman, supra, with Miller v. United States, 186 F.2d 937 (1951).