*1 , HEALY and Before STEPHENS BONE, Judges. Circuit STEPHENS, Judge. Circuit 1950, February 28, the On United States against Tanimura, instituted and two suit dismissed, was against others it whom of charging them with violation Emer- the 1942, gency Price Control Act of as amend-' ed, U.S.C.A.Appendix, seq., The 50 901 et § 1947, amended, and Housing Rent of as Act U.S.C.A.Appendix, seq., 1881 et and 50 § Regulations Acts, the under 8 Rent these 4302, 7334; by collecting F.R. 12 rents F.R. legally of fixed in the maximum excess through complaint It rates. was asked the injunction against that an issued further be violations, that of restitution the over- ordered, charges overcharged to those be damages treble be awarded to the and plaintiff in overcharges the sum of the year prior the which had accrued within to- judgment the institution of the suit. The against in went Tanimura with accordance complaint except single damages that the damages instead of were awarded treble government statutory damages. as the upon appeals Tanimura the one ground right that he entitled as was of to Appellant makes jury a trial. no conten injunction tion that the of against issues further and restitution of violations over- payments equitable are not in nature tri by jury. a court without It able the was of within the sound discretion the court as equitable the to whether issues or law the precedence take issues should in trial. It that apparent overshadowing pur is the by pose government the action the of as plaintiff towas effectuate rent control law. overcharged failed to Those their exercise *2 330
right govern- bring to and had have action the overruled our own Bruckman case of complaisant Hollzer, to Cir., 730, ment been as v. 9 1946, substantial 152 and F.2d overcharges seem an invitation have it would but not Civil Federal Rules considered of Procedure, to tend to break lawlessness that would 38(a) 39(a), rules and 28 U.S. “ * * * sought by C.A., this wartime down the benefits which intended to were against ‘preserve’ legislation. remedial right jury Restraint under by the of trial statutory damages future as violation with the Seventh the Constitu Amendment to motivated the a deterrent law violation to tion of the United States”. government. the In these circumstances appellant We think is mistaken. judge wisely go immediate- trial decided to opinion We gov- stated in that the our equitable ly to the issues. moving ernment is effectuate primarily to equitable trying In the issues the purposes the control law and of the rent necessarily every court decided essential injunction against fur- asks “an be issued (cid:127) injunctive issue fact involved in the of re violations, ther that of the over- restitution restitution, together lief and the in with charges ordered, overcharged to those be statutory damages dollar amount of the to * * and damages treble awarded be United (a equal States sum to overcharges Procedure, Federal Rules of 38 Civil rules during year prior beginning the to suit). preserve right (a) 39(a) and the trial of Only the trebling issue as to such damages by jury necessary to to those issues not or remained untried. That issue was not nec juris- equitable merely not to incidental the essary equitable to the decision of is the opinion The Bruckman-Hollzer diction. sues and is ail issue of law to be determined recognizes principle does applies this as and government the for “Unless the defendant opinion our in would the instant case. It the satisfying jury sustains burden of the hardly necessary the to write seem into wjllful that the violation was' neither nor opinion falling within the that issues not negligent”. quotation The above from is principle just without could be tried stated Judge Magruder’s opinion Chief in Oren a jury. a in the face of a demand jury for States, Cir., stein v. 1951, United 1 191 F. petition for is denied. rehearing The a 184, 190,in which 2d issues much like those given in scholarly our case are treatment.
However, judgment a need not be every
reversed in case where error has
been committed or right where a been has litigant.
denied a Where the result could
not have litigant been more favorable to the
had the error not right occurred or his fully him, judgment
been accorded the need NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not be reversed. v. DEENA PRODUCTS CO. case, In this not damages treble but No. 10509. only the actual statutory damages were al Appeals, United States Court of court, by lowed the and judgment so the Seventh Circuit. stands. A trial before jury as whether a to 18, March 1952. neglect underlay wilfulness or either the overcharges could result no in more favora April Rehearing 29, 1952. Denied judgment appellant. ble to
We have examined the by ap- cases cited
pellant and not do find them in conflict expressed.
with the herein views
Affirmed.
Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing. a
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, in his petition rehearing for the above case,
in entitled asserts that we