Court Opinion

ID: 9635186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:40:41.320931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:17.999006
License: Public Domain

MADDEN, Judge
(dissenting in part).
I think the court has interpreted too narrowly the effect of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148, 76 S.Ct. 219, 100 L.Ed. 149. On page 149 of 350 U.S., on page 220 of 76 S.Ct. the court, said — ■
“We granted certiorari, 349 U.S. 937, 75 S.Ct. 784, to resolve an asserted conflict between the decisions of the Courts of Appeals.”
In a footnote to the sentence just quoted,, the court said:
In considering whether the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2462, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2462, applied to § 26 (b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act, the Fifth Circuit held § 26 (b) (1) to be a civil remedy in United States v. Weaver, 207 F.2d 796, 797, and the Sixth Circuit held it to be penal in United States v. Witherspoon, 211 F.2d 858.
Neither the Weaver nor the Witherspoon case involved any question of double *567jeopardy or of criminal penalties. They involved only the question whether the five year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2462 was applicable to suits by the Government to recover the sums provided for in § 26(b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act. Since the provisions of the Contract Settlement Act, and of the False Claims Act, involved in the instant case, are in all respects here relevant like those of the Surplus Property Act, the Supreme Court’s decision in Rex Trailer is applicable. I think that decision is that the recoveries provided in § 26(b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act are not criminal and are not penal, and that the 28 U.S.C. § 2462 five year statute of limitations is not applicable.