United States v. Johnson

319 U.S. 302 (1943)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

One Roach (P), a tenant of residential property belonging to D, brought this suit in the district court alleging that the property was within a 'defense rental area' established by the Price Administrator pursuant to §§ 2 (b) and 302 (d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23; that the Administrator had promulgated Maximum Rent Regulation No. 8 for the area; and that the rent paid by P was in excess of the maximum fixed by the regulation. The United States, intervened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 401, and filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the Act, which D had challenged by motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the complaint in that the Act and the promulgation of the regulation under it were unconstitutional because Congress by the Act had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Administrator. The Government moved to reopen the case on the ground that it was collusive and did not involve a real case or controversy. The affidavit of P, submitted by the Government on its motion to dismiss the suit as collusive, shows without contradiction that P brought the present proceeding in a fictitious name; that it was instituted as a 'friendly suit' at D's request; that P did not employ, pay, or even meet, the attorney who appeared of record in his behalf; that he had no knowledge who paid the $15 filing fee in the district court, but was assured by D that P would incur no expense in bringing the suit; that he did not read the complaint which was filed in his name as plaintiff; that in his conferences with D and d's attorney of record, nothing was said concerning treble damages and he had no knowledge of the amount of the judgment prayed until he read of it in a local newspaper. D's counter-affidavit admitted that D's attorney had undertaken to procure an attorney to represent P and had assured P that his presence in court during the trial of the cause would not be necessary. The court denied the motion. The Government appealed.