Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/322/379/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-12-11 09:09:56
Document Index: 103101662

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 12', '§ 14', '§ 28', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 15', '§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 15', '§ 25', '§ 15']

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court directly to this Court, taken under § 2 of the Expediting chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
After the remand, the District Court granted the application of the United States to be allowed to intervene in the bankruptcy proceedings. The United States' petition for intervention asserted that it was concerned in arresting chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"In every suit in equity brought in any district court of the United States under sections 1-7 or 15 [Footnote 1] of this title [provisions of the Sherman and Clayton
The nature of the equity suit, referred to in § 2 of the Expediting Act, is defined and restricted by 15 U.S.C. § 4, which authorizes the United States to bring equity suits for enforcement of the Sherman Act. Section 4 invests the district courts with jurisdiction to "prevent and restrain violations of sections 1-7 and 15 of this title," and makes it the duty of the United States attorneys in their districts under direction of the Attorney General "to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations." Section 25 of 15 U.S.C. makes provision for like suits in equity to be brought under the direction of the Attorney General to "prevent and restrain violations" of provisions of the Clayton Act embodied in 15 U.S.C. §§ 12, 13, 14-21, and 22-27. Such a suit brought under § 14 was held to be appealable directly from the district court to this Court in International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U. S. 131.
By 15 U.S.C. § 28, derived from § 1 of the Expediting Act of 1903, it was provided that, in any suit in equity brought in any district court of the United States under §§ 1-7 or § 15 of that title "wherein the United States is complainant," the Attorney General may file in court a certificate of public importance, and that thereupon such case shall be given precedence over others, shall be in every way expedited, and shall be assigned for hearing before a court of three judges selected as provided in the section. [Footnote 2] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The present is a bankruptcy proceeding, and even though a court of bankruptcy possesses and may exercise equity powers in the disposition of suits in bankruptcy, see Bankruptcy Act § 2, 11 U.S.C. § 11; Securities & Exchange Commission v. United States Realty Co., 310 U. S. 434, 310 U. S. 455, and cases cited, a bankruptcy proceeding is not itself a suit in equity, either by statutory definition or in common understanding. This bankruptcy proceeding is not one "wherein the United States is complainant," nor is it brought under the antitrust laws of the United States, and we cannot say that the intervention of the United States in this proceeding has so altered it as to make it a suit in equity within the meaning of § 2 of the Expediting Act.
By its petition and intervention, the United States has aligned itself with the debtors' trustees, who are asking only to have appellant's claims rejected. The United States likewise, by its petition in intervention, asked that the District Court adjudge that appellant's claims against the debtors be rejected, and that appellant take nothing by them. As an intervenor, the United States was limited to the field of litigation open to the original parties. Chandler & Price Co. v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., 296 U. S. 53, 296 U. S. 57-60, and cases cited; Vinson v. Washington Gas Light Co., 321 U. S. 489. That position of the trustees in the proceeding for allowance of appellant's claims, conducted in conformity to the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, was not that of complainants in an equity suit. The trustees did not seek in that proceeding, nor were they authorized to seek, equitable relief for the prevention of future violations. They were, rather, in the position of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We conclude that the order in intervention authorized the Government to urge the rejection of appellant's claims in the bankruptcy proceeding; that, in so doing, it was not acting as a complainant in an equity suit within the meaning of § 2 of the Expediting Act, and consequently no appeal lies to this Court from the order of the District Court rejecting appellant's claims. The appeal will therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain it. Since appellant has also taken an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, we need not exercise our supervisory power to vacate the judgment below in order to permit a proper appeal to be taken. Wilentz v. Sovereign Camp, 306 U. S. 573, 306 U. S. 582; cf. Gully v. Interstate Nat. Gas. Co., 292 U. S. 16; Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U. S. 386, 292 U. S. 392; 307 U. S. 174; Phillips v. United States,@ 312 U. S. 246, 312 U. S. 254.
Section 2 of the Expediting Act, as enacted in 1903, 32 Stat. 823, referred merely to suits in equity "under any of said Acts," the "said Acts" being those referred to in § 1 of the Act, i.e., the Sherman Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, and "any other Acts having a like purpose that hereafter may be enacted." The compilers of the United States Code, in place of "any of said Acts," refer only to §§ 1-7 and 15 of Title 15 of the Code. It is not apparent why § 15 is included, since it provides for the recovery of treble damages for violation of the antitrust laws, and since the United States is not authorized by the section to maintain such a suit. See United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600. It is probable that the compilers of the Code intended to refer to 15 U.S.C. § 25, which is § 15 of the Clayton Act and which is discussed in the text of this opinion.