Document: 340 U.S. 616 71 S.Ct. 524 95 L.Ed. 582 UNITED STATESv.MOORE et al. No. 344. Argued and Submitted Feb. 28— March 1, 1951. Decided 26, Rehearing Denied April 30, See 341 923, 740. Mr. James L. Morrisson, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Frank Cusack, Dallas, Tex., respondents. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The United States brings this action under Housing Rent Act 1947, as amended,1 to obtain damages violations restitution overceiling rentals collected. question is whether § 206(b) a landlord may be ordered make where prohibitory injunction not required because defense-rental area was decontrolled after but before Government brought suit. 2 Respondents are landlords housing accommodations in Texas. Between October May 31, 1949, they demanded received rents excess those allowed by applicable maximum rent regulation2 issued Act. This begun Federal District Court on June 29, pursuant §§ 2053 206(b)4 complaint its terms sought injunction, all overcharges, statutory damages. moved dismiss ground that 23, six days prior filing complaint, Expediter, taken City Dallas 204(j)(3) Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1894(j)(3), terminated control city; act Expediter provisions Title II including remedial which suit brought; no saving clause applicable. denied motion. did demand jury. A trial court concluded judgment Government, allowing $50 wilful violation ordering tenant overcharges received. On appeal respondents Appeals Fifth Circuit reversed. 1950, 182 F.2d 332. It held has right solely 205 remanded new issue. dismissal directed insofar seeks injunctive relief restitution. asserting conflict with Porter v. Warner Holding, Co., 1946, 328 395, 66 1086, 90 1332, petitioned review here only court's denial We granted certiorari. 890, 206.5 3 recognized ancillary against or regulations. However, petitioner conceded it an when been lawfully terminated, 'there remained proceeding equity would have jurisdiction could adjunctive' 'was neither appropriate nor issuable'. at page 336. 4 Petitioner asserts entitled remedy restitution, independently relief, section provides that, if there actual threatened any regulation, 'the application * competent order enjoining such acts practices, enforcing compliance provision, upon showing person engaged about engage practices permanent temporary restraining order, other shall without bond.' (Emphasis supplied.) petitioner's contention italicized language authorizes sought. 5 Both parties rely, Appeals, decision Holding supra, construed 205(a) Emergency Price Control 1942, 925(a). provision source 1947 two sections present purposes identical. case overcharges. lower courts reversed, concluding proper 'other order.' interpretation give effect congressional purpose authorize whatever within inherent equitable power considered necessary enforce said 'anticipates orders character, although makes attempt catalogue infinite forms variations might take. In framing remedies must primarily effectuate policy protect public interest while giving respect private interests involved. thus called into play clearly court, discretion, decree excessive charges Congress.' 400, 1090, 1332. Thus reasonably purposes. 6 Adhering broad orders' adopted case, we think entered permissible 206(b). Such enforces regulations period rentals. If had intended merely insure subsequent obedience area, unnecessary than since latter wholly adequate secure prospective compliance. Ebeling Woods, 8 Cir., 175 242, 244.6 7 Two contentions advanced require brief consideration. argued termination respondents' ended legal 206 instituted. rely literal 'The terminate title' taking city. sufficient answer s 204(f), set out margin;7 survival rights liabilities incurred expiration title either date specified Congress President later determine. also contend their constitutional jury trial. No made Rule Civil Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C.A. and, so far record shows, waived. 9 reversed cause further proceedings conformity opinion. 10 Reversed. 11 CHIEF JUSTICE DOUGLAS affirm Appeals. 12 BLACK FRANKFURTER 61 Stat. 193, amended, U.S.C.App.(Supp. III) 1881 seq., seq. Controlled Regulation, Fed.Reg. 4331; 13 1861; 14 1571. 199, 1895, 1895. 1896(b), 1896(b). cross-appeal from less amount, established sustained contention. challenged here. uniformly view federal like provisions, time order. Woods Wayne, 177 559; Creedon Randolph, 1948, 165 918; Jackson 338; Bowles Skaggs, 1945, 151 817; Co. Creedon, 166 119; 242; Richman, 174 614; Gochnour, 964; Emery States, 1951, 186 900; Mashburn, D.C.W.D.Ark.1949, 85 F.Supp. 968; Cowen's Estate, D.C.D.Mass.1950, 91 331; Wolfe, 516, 518—519. Only below cases obtained filed. Compare Miller 937. cease close proclamation concurrent resolution Houses Congress, declaring continuance authority existence emergency, whichever earlier; except date, regulations, orders, requirements thereunder treated still remaining force sustaining liability.' 63 24, U.S.C.App. (Supp. 1894(f), 1894(f). subsequently amended minor respects.

Category: 0