Court Opinion

ID: 9419979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:52:23.464572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:21.468993
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Reed,
concurring.
As I think this proceeding states a cause of action against the United States Maritime Commission, I do not *740agree with the manner of disposition. No damages are sought against the petitioners. Relief is sought that can only be obtained by an order directed against the Commission.
A contract between plaintiffs, Dollar et al., and the United States Maritime Commission, was attached to the complaint as an exhibit. The contract was not signed by any individual member of the Commission but by the Commission through its duly authorized special counsel. In the complaint, respondents alleged that they and their predecessors in interest “caused said shares of stock of the company to be transferred to the United States Maritime Commission.” They further alleged that they made demand upon the “Maritime Commission for the return of said stock in July, 1945. This request was denied by the Maritime Commission in July, 1945.” The ultimate result sought by the complaint was that the respondents “be directed and ordered by this court to return the plaintiffs’ stock, now in the unlawful possession and custody of the defendants, to the plaintiffs, the lawful owners.” Taken as a whole, I cannot read the complaint otherwise than as alleging that title and possession of this stock is now in the United States Maritime Commission. Although plaintiffs assert possession in the defendants, the other allegations and the attached contract show that defendants hold the stock by virtue of their official positions as members of the Commission. If the basic allegations were proven, the Commission would be shown to be in possession of the stock under a claim of right.
If that is the correct interpretation of the complaint, it follows of course that the Maritime Commission is an indispensable party to this proceeding. See Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Smith, 266 U. S. 152, 159. No matter how far beyond their statutory powers the members of the Commission may have acted in contracting with the *741respondents or how illegal may be the retention of the certificates by the Commission under its claim of ownership through the contract, the transfer to the Commission, as alleged in the petition, put the title and possession of this property in the Maritime Commission and not in the petitioners as individuals. It may be that the Commission holds the stock wrongfully; but, if so, it can only be restored to the respondents by an act of the Commission. Under such circumstances, cases like United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, are inapplicable. In the Lee case, an action in ejectment was brought to recover possession of land from officers of the United States who were wrongfully in possession of the land. That suit was not brought against the United States to compel the United States to retransfer title to the complainants or to quiet title in those who claimed against the United States. In United States v. Lee, the officer of the United States could be ejected from the real property involved without loss of title or right of possession to the United States. That is not the result in this case. A piece of paper, the stock certificate, will be taken from the hands of the Maritime Commission and placed in the hands of plaintiffs by a court decree, if plaintiffs are successful. If the decree is to be effective, it will require the individual defendants to transfer the certificates by endorsement of the name of the Maritime Commission or delivery, if the certificate is still in the name of the plaintiffs. The situation is as if the United States had been ordered by the decree in the Lee case to convey title to and possession of the property to Lee. Plaintiffs do not here seek damages for past acts of petitioners. Plaintiffs want property now in the possession of the Maritime Commission and to secure this relief, plaintiffs, I should think, must implead the Commission. Whether the Maritime Commission holds the property by title unchallenged by the plaintiffs or challenged by the plaintiffs *742cannot, it seems to me, be determinative as to the necessity of making the Commission a party. See Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218.
Cases cited in the opinion of the Court as following the rule of United States v. Lee are not significant here. Two are similar cases of ejectment.1 Other cases cited turn on liability of a sovereign to suits.2 Still others are those which enjoin an officer from proceeding illegally.3 In Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U. S. 536, 539, 549, there was a suit by a lessee to enjoin officers of the United States from taking possession of boats leased to the plaintiff by the Government and also to return the boats already taken. The prayer for a return of the property contained the possibility of the issue here raised but this Court treated the proceeding as one to enjoin a threatened trespass.
The present suit is for the return to the plaintiffs of property held by the Maritime Commission under a contract which the Dollar interests allege called for a return of the certificates to them on payment of a debt. Such a suit, it seems to me, is an effort to get possession of property actually in the possession of the Maritime Commission. This cannot be done without joining the Maritime Commission as a party defendant. See Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218; Wells v. Roper, 246 U. S. 335; Morrison v. Work, 266 U. S. 481, 487; Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U. S. 371.
As this appears to me as a suit against the Commission, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, remanding this case to the District Court. There the ques*743tions of the suability of the Commission4 and the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, could be considered. There the merits of the controversy could be decided.

 Merchant Marine Act, 49 Stat. 1988, § 207, as amended, 52 Stat. 954, § 2:
“The Commission may enter into such contracts, upon behalf of the United States, and may make such disbursements as may, in its discretion, be necessary to carry on the activities authorized by this Act, or to protect, preserve, or improve the collateral held by the Commission to secure indebtedness, in the same manner that a private corporation may contract within the scope of the authority conferred by its charter.” Keifer & Keifer v. R. F. C., 306 U. S. 381.

 Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141.

 Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U. S. 446; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436; Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47.

 Ickes v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605.