Legal Document

364 U.S. 310 81 Supreme Court Reporter 13 5 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 8 UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner,v.E. baron HOUGHAM et al. Number 24. Argued Oct. 18, 1960. Decided Nov. 7, Leave to File Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1961. See 938, 376. Mr. Wayne G. Barnett, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Calvin or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Conron, Jr., Bakersfield, Cal., respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 Section 16 Surplus Property Act 19441 gave priority preferences veterans in purchase surplus war materials. 58 Statutes-at-Large 765. 262 authorized recover damages against any person who obtains such property from Government by 'fraudulent trick, scheme, device * *.' The complaint this case charged that respondent Hougham, a nonveteran, combined with other respondents, are veterans, and obtained his own business purposes hundreds items property, including trucks, trailers equipment, fraudulent use veteran respondents' certificates. After hearings, District found respondents guilty fraud as awarded amount $8,000. Both sides appealed. Appeals affirmed, rejecting both Government's contention were inadequate contentions finding was clearly erroneous claims barred statute limitations. 9 Cir., 270 Federal Reporter, 2nd 290. Because raises important questions concerning interpretation application Act, we granted petition certiorari. 361 958, 80 590, 4 541. 2 first contend entire controversy here has been settled, is therefore moot, estopped further pressing them. This rests upon fact—set out brief not disputed Government—that after trial court judgment entered before it affirmed Appeals, accepted promissory notes totalling $8,000, judgment. fact alone renders moot at least creates some sort estoppel Government. We disagree. It generally rule law where appealed on ground inadequate, acceptance payment unsatisfactory does not, standing alone, an accord satisfaction claim. See, example, Embry versus Palmer, 107 3, 25, 27 L.Ed. 346; Erwin Lowry, 7 How. 172, 183—184, 12 655. provides perfect example good sense underlying rule. For themselves proposed asserting expressly their purpose so doing obtaining 'Full Release Judgment Liens' filed Counties Los Angeles Kern. did nothing more transaction than accept execute requested release. Since release denominated only Kern, simply cannot properly be interpreted constitute full all Moreover, since transfer occurred prior decision clear neither parties regarded pursued appeals court. Thus totally inconsistent position they sought avoid liability Government, $8,000 had already paid. must necessarily have predicated view without prejudice rights either party those might come established subsequent judicial decree. Under circumstances, lost its right press claim believes due wholly untenable. 3 find unnecessary discuss length second contention—that asserted sufficient say courts below entirely correct for, resting assumption recoveries under § 26(b) penalties, our holding Rex Trailer company States, 350 148, 76 219, 100 149. proceed principal controversy—the question adequacy relevant part obtain kind here: '(1) shall pay sum $2,000 each act, double damage which may sustained reason thereof, together costs suit; 6 '(2) shall, if elect, liquidated damages, equal twice consideration agreed given agency; '(3) restore thus secured retain agency property.' In originally filed, claimed recovery 26(b)(1)—$2,000 act plus actual damages. Subsequently, attempted file First Amended Complaint claiming 26(b)(2). Upon indication judge original 26(b)(1) amounted irrevocable election remedies, but formal ruling effect, withdrew Second reverted 26(b)(1). Still later, however, following pretrial proceedings Rule Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., district judge, approval counsel parties, conference order provided, '(T)his supplement pleadings govern course cause, unless modified prevent manifest injustice.' And enumerated 'issues law' remained 'to litigated trial.' One issues reserved legal correctness argument entitled 'double sales price vehicles described Complaint,' 'entitled make (as between 26(b)(2)) time judgment' then elect 'in event favor, receive States.' ultimately decided issue constituted election, proceeded award (1). different ground. held refusal permit 26(b)(2) within power determine appropriate remedy 26(b), no remedies even involved case. page 293. contends denial justified theories adopted below. Respondents waived urge voluntarily proceeding Complaint. failure get withdrawing filing But, shown above, conclusions show urged change up rendered. That order, 16, conclusively declared should 'supplement these supplementary 26(b)(2), rather changed insofar posed required adjudication effect language court, conference, 'shall recites amendments allowed when controls action, Government,* most certainly determined. Thus, whether With respect theory can legislative history lends slightest support construction. leads naturally conclusion ordinary liberal rules governing amendment applicable. applicable 15 designed facilitate except opposing would result. Despite contrary, see one there plainly prejudice. situation, point subvert basic Rule. 'The reject approach pleading game skill misstep decisive outcome principle proper merits.' Conley Gibson, 355 41, 48, 78 99, 103, 80. conclude circumstances amend erred refusing amendment. 10 alternative appears, examination, equally placing determine, according evidence presented particular case, three subsections require subsection. collides express 'if elect.' (Emphasis supplied.) section conclusive point, also rejected. 11 final new trial. Obviously, need issue. But record fixing 'twice given' vehicles. There 'agreed given,' proceeds, because transactions cash fixed argument, while ingenious, sound. Cash sales, like others, follow agreement regard given.' Respondents' contrary would, accepted, allow purchaser effectively being careful dealings cash. Plainly, suffers just much sale credit sale. An allows accepted. reversed cause remanded directions enter ordered. 14 directions. WHITTAKER, whom DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. deference, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions agree dissent two reasons. 17 First. appeal money he collected satisfied. Here, recognizes, think, with, respectfully submit, cases—which legion—that having recovered over serious protests owed nothing, having, knowledge facts, benefits collecting satisfying it, thereafter prosecute reverse it. 18 relies 346, 184, 655, notwithstanding satisfied cases do Court's conclusion. $9,185.18, claimed, $2,296.29, contended admitted due. latter He afterwards judgment, pointed out: awarded, paid, constitutes what controversy.' Id., 8, 29. How situation here! later Reynes Dumont, 130 354, 486, 32 934, appellants received many certain bonds taken satisfy action completely could appeal. contention, said: 19 confessedly theirs construed into admission decree seek erroneous, nor take appellees anything, reversal decree, otherwise entitled. 25 (27 346).' 394, 497. 20 Those fall well-recognized very narrow exception general here. Similarly, involve collection Rather, performance minor collateral 'condition imposed him (could) fruits decree' equity. 184. Like Embry, presented. 21 nearly Gilfillan McKee, 159 303, 6, 40 161. appellant interest special fund $7,070 jointly participate $147,057.63. A portion division another denied fund. appealed, met accepting fund, Recognizing satisfied, '* whole defendant might, perhaps, operate estop insisting appeal.' 'there practically decrees which, bill, pleadings, kept distinct separate matter, McPherson; McPherson participation whatever.' 'his share waiver disposing fund.' 311, 9. 22 Fourth Circuit flatly ruled Finefrock Kenova Mine Car Co., 37 310, among cases. substantially less said 314: 23 'We necessary discussion discharge inconsistency prosecution appeal, relying decisions 24 McFarland Hurley (C.C.A.) 286 KF105 F3 365; Carson Lumber St. Louis, etc., Railroad 209 191, 193; Snow Hazlewood 179 182. obvious falls exceptions thereto set supra.'1 Third likewise same way, Smith Morris, 69 3; Fifth Circuit, Kaiser Standard Oil 89 58; White Yarborough Dailey, 228 836, Eighth Louis S.F.R. 191. Literally dozens last resort almost Union held.2 26 I, therefore, submit settled requires should, dismissed. Second. At events, went trial, way asked subdivision (1) (2) section. procedural chronology follows. 'of act,' motion leave asking 'a (2). decision. On shows formally instead Complaint, again, complaint, 'the Of course, terms allowable measures seek, surely possible stage irrevocably election. insist going If conduct ask could? 29 true entered, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. objects '(t)he simplification issues,' consider necessity desirability pleadings.' recited tried 'defendants became liable committed them (may be) determined violation statute'; and, trial,' appears: 30 'It plaintiff *. Previously indicated made virtue successive complaints file. Plaintiff elects, federal involved. calls attention preserved added.) 31 simplifying issues, may, define tried, pleadings. freely provides. pleading. unconditionally favor.' Instead, basis. Surely, measure think bound reasons, dismiss inasmuch agree, minimum, affirm elected hence Now Code Annotated KF65 U5 484. 489. unequivocal: 'This provisions elects action; election; limited forth 26(b)(1).' pages 193—194 undoubtedly benefit accepts receives advantage, precluded reviewed. Nevertheless, absolute indivisible whole. absolutely will affect (Reynes 354—394, Sup.Ct. 934), especially present bring review (Embry 3—8, Merriam Haas, Wall. 687, 29; Dashiel, 688, 268).' interested Am.Jur., Appeal Error, 214, authors universal say: litigant has, material error it.'

Classification Label: 11