Document: 346 U.S. 568 74 S.Ct. 287 98 L.Ed. 300 UNITED STATESv.LINDSAY et al. No. 94. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 1, 2, 1953. January 18, 1954 Mr. Paul A. Sweeney, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Edward C. Park, Boston, Mass., respondents. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 On February 29, 1952, filed complaint in this case against Lindsay and other respondents alleging that on 26, 1945, had damaged wool to Government violation an agreement with Commodity Credit Corporation, a wholly owned corporate agency States. The defendants moved dismiss ground Government's seven year old claim was barred by six time limit § 4(c) 1948 Act as amended.1 That section provides 'No suit or Corporation shall be allowed unless * it have been brought within years after right accrued which is *.' Holding 1952 because sue 'accrued' 1945 when delivered, District dismissed case. 105 F.Supp. 467. Appeals First Circuit affirmed same ground. 202 F.2d 239. However, Sixth has held arising prior not arose but became effective. Field Packing Co. v. States, 197 329. This conflict among circuits statutory meaning led us grant certiorari. 810, 28. question here whether claims growing out Corporation's transactions date came into existence 2 In common parlance accrues comes did 1945. Giving its normal would therefore bar all sued from they before passage Act. admits controls applied prospectively, is, Act's effective date. But construing way requires limitation period begin gives law retroactive effect, shortening some summarily cutting off others. To prevent retroactivity we are urged depart pre-existing claims. suggested departure no minor one. We asked read words 'six accrued' though Congress intended say causes action.' Precedents cited which, avoid barring suits, courts refused give instead given special meaning—the new statute limitations becomes argued these court decisions made word art used such statutes. Therefore, hold meaning. 3 It true sometimes suggests, unable agree thereby taken established technical must mind legislative history fails show passed. Moreover, many gave so possible constitutional questions should statutes interpreted destroy private rights. See, e.g., Sohn Waterson, 17 Wall. 596, 21 737. raised applying Government. unquestioned power recovery if sees fit. And below need now decide can persons see Lynch 292 571, 581, 54 840, 844, 78 1434; Cummings Deutsche Bank Und Discontogesellschaft, 115, 119, 57 359, 361, 81 545; Addison Huron Stevedoring Corp., Cir., 204 88, 91—92. 4 also urges quite apart considerations there strong reasons why should, whenever possible, construe retroactivity. Cases particular provisions deemed inequitable unfair retrospectively impute law-making bodies purpose bring about results.2 cannot any consequences application call intend take effect according natural words. business since 1933. Probably intervening years. Maybe others, like one, comparatively small amounts. All, large small, could arose. think might well believed wise stale agents others who dealt past. For view arguments based notions fairness justice. situation seems better leave problem rather than stretch beyond ordinary Cf. Chase Securities Corp. Donaldson, 325 304, 316, 65 1137, 1143, 89 1628. 5 Affirmed. 6 REED, dissenting. 7 An emphasis dissent upon Court's precedents construction will useless arouses attention draftsmen necessity more explicit language protect government 8 Prior question, Delaware corporation name federal created Charter existed operated. 15 U.S.C. (Supp. III) 713, U.S.C.A. 713. obligations were unaffected their transfer present earlier without limitation, state federal, Summerlin, 310 414, 60 1019, 84 1283, cases cited. up enactment 4(c), 714b(c), compelling reason, desire prompt proper administration, file suits. 9 As played major part organization 1933 purchase, storage financing American agricultural products, accumulated favor over S.Rep. 1022, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. If presented res integra, claims, then lead me interpret words, 'brought accrued',* prospective only imputing unreasonable arbitrary destruction valid corporation. conclusion follow principle 'must receive strict government.' E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Davis, 264 456, 462, 44 364, 366, 68 788; Independent Coal Coke 274 640, 650, 47 714, 718, 71 1270. 10 Other principles, me, necessitate conclusion. Senator Aiken, Chairman subcommittee charge bill, floor manager senior Senate conferee, recorded his statement published adjourned. 11 'With respect 4-year run transferred Federal until June 30, 1948, charter.' 94 Cong.Rec. A4409. 12 interpretation establishing definition exception St. Louis, S.F. T.R. Co., 270 46 182, 70 435; Fullerton-Krueger Lumber Northern Pacific R. 266 435, 45 143, 69 367; 737; Lewis, Use Longworth How. 776, 909. 13 light purposes precedents, viewed setting damage pilferage stored crops, judgment reversed. 62 Stat. 1070, amended, 63 154, 156; V) 714b(c). Heth, Cranch 399, 479; Claridge Apartments Commissioner Internal Revenue, 323 141, 172, 139; Hassett Welch, 303 303, 58 559, 82 858; Brewster Gage, 280 327, 50 457; Magnolia Petroleum 276 160, 48 236, 72 509; Shwab Doyle, 258 529, 42 391, 66 747; Union Laramie Stock Yards 231 190, 34 101, 179; Fidelity Guaranty Benefit Struthers Wells 209 306, 28 537, 52 804; four Act, 1070.

Category: 7