*1 478 carry through created nature a state to (5) to make loans self-liquidating; and public publicly-owned program general works of the construction of for type Authority of Port of New York and high- a railroad bridge to be used for public agencies; other like and this might cost of which way, construction strengthened least so far as ad by means of expected to be returned —at practice gives ministrative tolls, etc. force — looking projects at the thousands of for 195, 200, The 1933 act Stat. § grants and loans have been made program 402) authorized 40 U.S.C.A. § act, under the none of which so we far as prepared desig- and public works to be can discover is of the class here involved.1 projects included thereunder to be nated aspect Considered in the we have dis any project incorporated by reference and cussed, opinion respondents we are of eligible for theretofore character of a and the various boards whose actions are 201 (a) section under subsection loans under did determining attack not err in provided act, specifically and of the 1932 petitioners were not within the class pri- (the of section 201 paragraph 3 persons eligible grant un a loan or should be bridge section) toll vate-owned der the act. But even if we mistaken private cor- held to include —in addition proposition thinking is mani bridges, porations for the construction language from fest the act and its part tunnels, hospitals in financed etc.— history, very at the least it is far reservoirs, plants, funds, pumping public contrary pe clear that contention of thus seen that drydocks. It will and correct; for, titioners is as was said designating Congress in 1932 act in the Cardozo Interstate Commerce Justice supported projects to be the various York, Co., Comm. v. New N. H. & H. R. states, distinctly placed in one class loans 178, 203, 106, 113, 287 U.S. 53 S.Ct. 77 states, public political subdivisions there, L.Ed. here as “One cannot rise political subdivi- of states agencies study setting from a statute entirely states, in another and sions of history of its and of the administrative corporations for the private separate class practice under it hold at the end an improvement construction, replacement, or belief assured the. Commission has tunnels, docks, This dis- etс. bridges, Congress been commanded to do the proj- classes the two between tinction act omitted.” And so in either case man act, in the 1933 forward ects was carried ought damus not to issue. United States extending the lat- Congress find where we Dern, 53 S.Ct. plants, hospitals, pumping to include ter 1250; United States v. Wil etc. bur, 414, 420, 502, 504, appropriation in 1935 But in the L.Ed. 1148. disposi providing Congress, after Affirmed. ap previously the funds and use tion under the 1932 unallotted propriated but acts, specially designated the its terms eligible under projects classes only high to include grants for loans re streets,- crossings, rural grade
ways, THOMPSON et al. DEAL et al. areas, agricultural habilitation, stricken No. 6695. conservation, irrigation,'reclamation, water electrification, housing, and assistance for Appeals United States Court of professional persons, and educational District of Columbia. provided then CCC—and Argued April 5, 1937. grants to states for loans acts previous Decided June thereof, agencies subdivisions projects included reference all omitted previous acts in specifically separate clause as a distinct separate and We this omission class. distinct we have named evi the circumstances Congress purpose of to confine dences authorized under or loan grant public of a instrumentalities act Cong., 183, 193, Senate Documents Nos. 2nd Sess. 74th *2 tax, prodqcers of dividual cotton. bale, pro- applied to equal to all $25 allotted. in excess of the amount duced any producer made to No allotment was comply with agreed of cotton unless *3 production prescribed on the limitations as Secretary, to cotton If he agricultural commodities. to all other exemp- comply, he was furnished did pro- evidencing his tion certificates C., Washington, D. White, C. of John of amoiint gin free of tax duce and to Greenville, Miss., Hafter, of and S. Jerome certificates, his The cotton farm. allotted appellants. for as- used, were transferable if not thus Gen., Atty. Les- Jackson, Asst. Robert H. Secretary in such manner as signable Key, Garnett, Atty., Sewall lie C. U. S. and the act were prescribe. of might Violations Neuland, LeSourd, all of F. A. and F. exceeding a punishable by fine not a J. G, appellees. Washington, for D. ex- imprisonment not and thousand dollars months, the act authorized six and MARTIN, ceeding Justice, and Chief Before regula- such rules and Secretary to make ORSDEL, GRONER, ROBB, and VAN necessary to opinion in his tions as STEPHENS, Associate Justices. effect, and of into violations carry act punishable Secretary’s rules were made GRONER, J.: exceeding fine not $200. a appeal decree This taken from a is an appel- equity brought by dismissing bill in a act to the authorization Pursuant paid by them lants to recover amounts under date Secretary regulations issued un- exemption issued purchasing certificates up 6, 1935, he set elabo- in which March der from the National the Bankhead Act machinery. So far rate administrative Surplus Exemption Tax Certificate’ Cotton here, provided for regulations material Missis- reside in Pool. Some of surplus ex- cotton tax the establishment sippi, was The suit others Alabama. speaking, pools. Broadly emption certificate brought class suit a pools to act as a these was purpose of Deal, manager District Court surplus exemption cer- clearing house Pool, of the Cotton a resident National ; say, who had is to farmer tificates Columbia; Wallace, thе District of equiv- produce an amount of cotton failed Julian, the Treas- Agriculture; re- might turn the his certificates alent to States; Payne urer and and of the United pool to be sold to a over to mainder Administrator, Davis, Comptroller re- to market cotton producer who wished spectively, A. A. of A. producer sur- Each excess of allotment. pool executed certificates to the rendering was The Bankhead Cotton Control Act appointing agreement triplicate trust passed place in- by Congress the cotton a “to “to hold as trustee dustry basis, pre- manager on sound commercial a pro- title, interest which right, competition practices in vent all unfair certificates, listed may have in said putting ducer cotton into channels interstate below,” authorizing manager commerce, provide foreign funds for in said place said certificates pool “to paying Agri- benefits under additional producer credit for the amount Act, pur- give Adjustment cultural and for other below”; as shown poses.”1 crop said The act was limited to the pool was au- manager of year say, the 1934-35 unless extended is to the Presi- and after to sell the certificates quota dent. thorized year fixed the for the first expenses to distribute 10,000,000bales, payment of all at and authorized the Sec- producers who “pro to the retary rata proceeds of Agriculture total to determine the certifi- pool.” The produced to be subsequent crop year, in a have contributed certified for cash or be sold imposed were to produced all in cates a tax on such pool manager at payable excess fixed check allotment. Secre- such conditions tary price and was authorized to allocate to each cot- price fixed determine. county ton should producing pro- fixed state bale). Under pound ($20 portion 4 cents a permissible total and likewise regulations the act up county provisions to divide total in- among seq.) et § 701 U.S.C.A. . 48 Stat. amended 48 Stat. Stat. those they and hearing pray final yielded farm producer cotton whose declared prosecuted suit is whbm the his allot- pounds than greater' number entitled the fund owners of by pay- to be the surplus only market his ment could they have which the amounts to receive pound the excess on ing tax of 5 cents a paid into it. severally pound certificates by buying four cents a at excess. covering of such the amount to dismiss motion was a There crop during the Appellants allege that District Court by the sustained having extend- (the President year 1935-36 surren who had producers ground that received provisions act) they ed the appel pool the certificates dered to the might be of cotton which their allotments in interest parties real bought lants. pro- exempt, they all produced but that fund; tax these trust beneficiaries Four amount. duced more than the allotted *4 upon appel duress no producers exercised They open (a) them: courses were then by is controlled lants; case that and bale; they (b) pay the tax of a could $25 23 L.Ed. Cullum, 92 Otis reissued certificates at could obtain $20 to the case. is more there We think bale; sub- (c) they could store their cotton regulations Act and If the Bankhead there- ject government lien but not to to a invalid, depositors of the are tax after removed without of the entitle rights which nо pool into the have exemption certifi- purchase parties be made or to proceeds them to the ; they ignore the- and (d) cates or could act deposi these rights the suit. Whatever pre- subject penalties to the criminal and act a result tors had arose as scribed therein. is it effective. regulations to make They the least of alleged that chose sur that the act power of the through the Deal, purchased appellee the evils of four value had a rendered certificates pool, exemp manager of the sufficient tax any If-the act and pound or value. cents a tion certificates to cover their excess cot Secretary by made regulations ton and that do led to this were invalid, surrendered cer the farmer Secretary price because the had fixed the sell is entitled nothing to tificate had pound the certificates at one cent less a than if of the fund in the distribution nothing They paid alleged they the tax. into the created duress. fund itself was $8,500 pool some repealed February Bankhead Act States not less United than one hundred (49 1106), following 1936 Stat. the decision producers thousand in like situation whose Butler, 56 S. payments into the total in excess of 477, 102 A.L.R. C. They say three and million a half dollars. purposes for the we take it as settled of this payments made the under duress and discussion —and indeed it was not otherwise money received Deal from argument the briefs contended certificates, sale of less the deduction of the decision of government counsel —that expenses pool, is about to be distribut invalidating Agricultur Butler Case ed under the directions of (48 Adjustment Act Stat. U.S.C.A. al § Agriculture persons to the several who sur controlling seq.) 601 et and that act pool.2 They rendered their certificates to the the regulations under consideration and now invalidity base their suit are, therefore, pursuant to it invalid. made regula Bankhead Act and of the rules and questions, So that the as we for deci tions of the and conclude with First, against sion are: is this a suit that, allegation is released Second, States ? have United producers, paid to the individual Third, standing equity? allega do the be, tracing impossi it would about properly tions of the bill show that this is ble, suit and that a under R.S. Fourth, paymеnts class suit? were the 1672- amended U.S.C.A. § §§ Fifth, made under duress? and was duress 1673), will not lie because attributable to the of certificates ? paid collector of internal revenue. to a appointment They of a receiver Contrary previous ask for First. to our ex preliminary in perience to hold the fund for a in suits the Treasurer and it, disposition junction to restrain and other of the United fiscal officers government enough proceeding, Counsel stated compara- had been argument all but pay asserted in the claims retained part tively had been small fund this suit. during pendency of this distributed invariably it is almost insisted duties appellees of these are as set forth States, we the suit is agreements upon one United the trust which the cer- are met in case with deposited.' proceed- the flat-footed tificates were That this who, ing statement the officerssued reality that this is in one between individuals parties a suit Thus in purchase and sale transac- States. tion, paragraph return to rule rather one than the Federal Wallace, Deal, show on cause filed behalf of Government officers or its to recover taxеs Julian, Davis, Payne, they say: penalties, “Fur- or clear ther answering, paragraph defendants admit that themselves in of their bill.” paid amounts into said through defend- From these extracts it obvious that ant Deal as trustee said fund were plaintiffs government sued defend paid any Collector of Internal Revenue capacities ants in their individual and not paid and were not to the United States. per officials of plaintiffs Defendants remedy admit formance an officialfunction and that the for, to, the return to the this,the proceeded throughout case has plaintiffs by any the United States or ory, opinion position and we that this are of part Collector of Internal Revenue of agreement correct. The trustee payments, allege pay- of said that said which the certificates were re ments have no connection with form quired payment manager *5 to the any against no basis claim for the United stipulated his and in behalf that after the any agent or States of the United States payment expenses he would the distribute in capacity agent, as such said but that pro fund who its rata to those were intended рayments in payments substance be- is, therefore, beneficiaries. The case different private parties involving tween in a matter Morgenthau, from Haskins Bros. & Co.v. 66 property the transfer of in which the Unit- App.D.C. 178, F.(2d) here, for 85 pro- ed States Government had and has no seen, money we entirely private have is the a prietary interest.” fund as to the Treasurer is which a mere And in filed the brief on behalf of the private all custodian for interests and the Unit appellees signed by Jackson, and Mr. As- ed strangers. States as such are It is not General, Attorney .public sistant it is “This money subject ap stated: money nor to the relationship suit similarity propriation has no Congress, a and therefore it is against government suit the its officers Congress dispose not In this can of. which recovery taxes, illegal penalties, principle by announced us Co., App. in Iron Orinoco Co. v. Orinoco paid. or other been levies 965, 972, D.C. against States, by 296 F. affirmed suit here is not the United sub nomine Court Mellon v. against nor it is a Collector of Internal Co., any Revenue who has collected for Orinoco Iron 266 U.S. levies applicable. The suit is L.Ed. is That the against States. directed was a arising against in case a claim foreign a fund which the United pecuniary out of a States protocol nation terms of has no interest A a whatsoever. had recovery proceeding in will paid this not be a been Treasury into recovery States, trust against the United a fund but beneficiaries. A dispute who was arose as to entitled to the many of it be a effect will presented claimants fund. One of the producers, parties individual cotton Secretary of claim to the State who refused action, good deposited in faith who paid recognize it or to order it out of the property purpose with a trustee for the Appeal had to fund. was the courts in Although appellees of sale. who were Columbia, jurisdiction District of and the in named defendants this action of- are challenged of the court ground was on the States, ficers of the United the bill makes that the decision of State joined only clear that reason final, argued was and it was also that the relationship suit of their this fund in which was one and could has no pecuniary the United States interest. not, therefore, be maintainеd. As In so far as handle this fund and in so proposition, said: last pany we “The iron com appellee Deal as the sold exemption far seeking in this suit to recover deposited certificates from proceeds fund, appellees anything from the United States. It con in these is ceded, so, properly representing not the United but treasury question is held in as a trust producers
individual cotton government has no fund. The claim to it pool, rights certificates in the
á83
au-
deposit
ment
what
under which the
none. No matter
it makes
ad-
expenses for
be,
govern-
thorized
deduction
might
outcome of the suit
For
necessi-
ministering the
This
itself
of the fund.
ment would receive none
certainly as
accounting
equity,
tates an
is
the United
suit
this reason the
what
way
best
appellants.”
determining
the
amount,
argued
the fund
anything,
the holder of
of O’Connor
And in
recent case
facts, we.
required
These
to account.
146, 152
Rhodes,
F.(2d)
App.D.C.
give
court
were sufficient to
517, 80L.Ed.
(affirmed
equity jurisdiction.
involving a
question arose
733), the same
respects
to that
many
similar
fund
think there
Third. Nor do we
been
there had
In that case
instant case.
made,
strongly
point
obj
ection
Corрoration and
deposit by the Fleet
properly
class suit.
urged, that this is not
national
Property
Alien
Custodian
every
other
Here
each
deposit
gov
by a
secured
which was
hank
person similarly
has an identical
situated
in full
paid
which was
ernment bonds
single
Each bears
interest in a
fund.
bank. Suit
failure
fund,
disposition
same
and a
relation
the divi
excess over
brought to recover the
rights
will
case as to one
decide the
creditors,
it was
and there
paid
dend
to other
brought
Appellants say
suit not
of all.
the United
the suit was
insisted that
sale,
restrain
to rescind
contract
but to
fund, we
property
the alien
As to
States.
completion
statutory
unlawful
an
special
for a
fund
earmarked
“The
said:
appellees
participated
scheme
Attorney Gener
purpose
the hands
pool agreement to take
Custodian,
Property
al,
acting Alien
appellants’ money for the benefit of
de
would
of the United
no interests
positors,
to en
brought
that the suit
fact
by decree in the
be affected
suit.
dissipation
of trust funds'
join
further
*6
fund to be
Congress has authorized
that
the
appellants,
prevent appellees
to
belоnging to
Property
Alien
purposes
used
per
such
to innumerable
paying
from
fund
office does
its char
change
Custodian’s
not
it,
thereby placiilg
not
sons
entitled to
rights
parties.”
or
of
the
the
acter
beyond
fund
reach.
the
their
held it
And so we
not a suit
was
think the suit is in the
of an
We
nature
the United States.
impress
to
a fund with
trust and
action
restoration,
compel
think it is
and we
as
it
that in this case
clear
We think
properly
brought
a class suit. Here there
Stimson,
Philadelphia Co. v.
in
parties
identity
identity
of
and an
of
an
the
L.Ed.
suit is not
32 S.Ct.
recover,
interests;
appellants
can
if one
one in which the court is asked to interfere
recover,
ll can
do not
a
the
of a government
with
official discretion
proceed
must then
as a class
a mul
there
purpose
challenge
is to
officer. Its entire
tiplicity
governing
of suits. The
rule is
to
authority
government agents
of certain
Ibs,
in Hartford Life Insurance Co. v.
stated
improperly,
appellants claim,
distribute
662-672,
a fund which
have an interest and in
1165, L.R.A.1916A, 765, and
Watson
the government
which
has
it
none —as
(C.C.A.)
Life & Trust Co.
National
F.
clear,
think, that
we
here
government
proprietary
possessory rights
or
has
fund.
is also
It
clear that under the
argument
Fourth. The
on behalf of
may-
have
authorities we
cited
court
appellants
government is that
not
impress
equitable
an
lien on the
doing
manager
business
coerced into
with
to equitable
its return
order
owners. See
say that officer
Deal. Counsel
could
of United
v. Bank
9 Wheat.
Osborn
purchase
appellants to
certificates
204;
738, 6 L.Ed.
German Alliance Ins.
pool,
appellants
just
that
could
Cleave,
v. Van
Ill.
áS6
necessary
ought
to court
to make a
ly
decree
necessary to all concerned—
money
he officers of Ohio who had the
taken
purchasing
tie
farmer in order
bank;
say,
from the
less on account
that is to
whether
might
suffer
realize more or
in-
real
having
considered as
industry, necessary to
of his
parties.
gratui-
being merely
terest or
nominal
plan
in order
of benefits
that its
already
consummated,
necessary
decided
Court had
might
ties
to
legal
might ob- that the bank had a constitutional
depositor
he
in order that
exemption
enjoyed
from taxa-
existence
tion.
tain the benefits.
taking by the
In that view
state
Deal was
here
In
we have
the situation
property
money of the
officers of the
the coercive
representative of
once
at
justification.
deci-
bank was without
compelled and
by
was'
force which
taking
change
sion was
did not
those who were
representative of
might arrest
and that the court
title
payments.
intended beneficiaries
money
put
posses-
before it was
out of their
much
compulsion was as
case the
such a
rightful
sion and restore it to the
owner.
been no
depositor
if there had
act of the
party.
Analogous
frequent
cases
third
Granted
occur-
intervention of a
duress,
depositor acting through
A sheriff sometimes
rence.
makes a seizure
process
ought not to with
jurisdic-
from a court without
pool which made it effective
tion,
ground
consequences
judgment
or when the
is rendered with-
escape the
compulsion.
applied the
out
A collector of
agent
charges
his
customs
citation.
he
list,
upon
duties
merchandise on the free
It is an ancient
of thе law
maxim
imposes
duty.
appoints
an
A
excessive
court
person
do
is forbidden to
that what
„
an administrator
erroneous informa-
agency
an
do
himself
cannot
supposed
tion as to the death of the
decedent.
always
held
And so it has
been
other.
an
personally
officers are in- each case
These
liable at
sons
princi
his
agent who receives
law,
per-
without reference to the
origi
he stands in his
pal
long
is liable so
interested
the orders or who had
been a
and until
has
nal situation
procured
person
them. A
interested
own-
paid
having
circumstances
change of
case,
er in
when there
each
are facts of mis-
principal. This rule
money to the
over the
may
injury,
equity.
chief and
resort to
Swartwout,
recognized
Elliott v.
admittedly
Here
fund is
under the
373, where it is said
it
Pet.
appellees, admittedly
control of
also
that, money
illegally
law
de
settled
provi-
are about to distribute it under the
agent,
received
manded
an
he cannot
pool
persons
agreement
sions of the
personal responsi
himself from
exonerate
legally
say
valid claim to it. To
by paying
principаl
to his
bility
over
when
such circumstances that their
action
pay it
notice not to
Here the
he has
over.
not be arrested and the
restored to
wholly
dif
illegally
those from whom it has been
ex-
position from
bank Otis
ferent
wrong
remedy
acted is to admit
without a
actively'participated
They
v. Cullum.
this,
we
the case.
plan sought
through by
to be carried
They
provisions
the Bankhead Act.
Reversed and remanded.
They
bound
its terms.
ob
agreed to be
STEPHENS, Associate
tained their
provisions,
virtue
its
Justice.
turned them
I
Assuming
dissent.
the correctness of
benefit,
sold for their
equal
to be
ruling
majority
that the suit is
provisions;
and,
ly
properly
virtue of
brought
equity
when
and is properly
*9
payment
by coercion,
suit,
for them was exacted
class
still I
a
recovery by
can be
no
implied promise
appellants
the law
a
to make restitu
the
for the following
agent
the
principal
tion and both
and the
reasons:
promise.
on that
liable
And so
are
Deal, acting
when
suit,
opinion,
my
1.
is against
law,
under an invalid
coerced
States,
United
the
certificates,
payment for the
we think it is
sued,
having
not
consented to be
it must for
settled
a suit
well
sustained
Against
fail.
that reasоn
whom a suit is
money
him to recover back
against
which
determined,
brought “is to be
by
the
possession
his
has in
to which
he
his
party named as defendant on the
fact of the
legal
has no
principal
claim.
record,
by
judgment
result of
the
or
the
”
wholly
The situation here
unlike
may be entered .
.
.
which
decree
v. Bank of United
that in Osborn
Hitchcock,
the
Minnesota
case.
supra.
question
There the
was whether
the
“First,
result of
entered
is neces-
Congress
which will
an act of
decree
sary
case
prevail
money
instant
in the
the withdrawal of
public
appel-
will
compel
be to
treasury;
lants
States
Treasurer of
United
“Second,
brought to
that no suit can be
moneys
custody
now in his
in the United enforce
making
appropriation;
of an
his
Treasury, moneys
States
reached
which
“Third,
Treas-
Secretary
that the
custody by
Congress and
virtue of an act of
ury
and the Treasurer are officers
regulations
having
promulgated thereunder
United
law;
holding
States
officesestablished
law, moneys
the force of
under such
which
that their
to receive and
duties are
regulations
act and
are to be disbursed
preserve
public
dis-
money
and not to
deposited
those who
law;
except conformably
burse it
that as
I am
officers of
have no
agree
unable to
with the distinctions
the United States
any
public money or
majority
respect
taken
or
Haskins
estate
money
ear-
Morgenthau,
App.D.C.
treasury,
Bros. & Co.
other
whether
special
part
F.(2d)
marked as
fund or as
certiorari denied 299
a
U.
States;
general
power control disposition. v. Orinoco Iron Co. and Houston v. Ormes possession funds Secretary in the of the incorrect, “It is therefore, that the say to Treasury and the Treasurer the Unit- authority de duty States the United were, ed States virtue of an Act of Con- pend alone pecuniary interest." gress, paid persons. to be to certain In the 178, 85 supplied] App.D.C. F.(2d) [Italics Orinoco Case the fund had been furnished 677, pages at 680-681. by Venezuela; other, by Congress; in the is, all fours instant I case in both cases the United States claimed with the in the Has- Haskins Case. as Just no interest in the fund. The suits were in custody moneys kins Case the reached the fund, equity subject Treasury and the person it, designated the act to receive as a of Con- Treasurer result of an act equitable claim, to an and the the- essential gress, proceeds so in case the the instant ory under which the Court of the pool are the custody is, United States allowed I un- Treasurer as the of an result act of Con- decisions, derstand the of a gress regulations and of ef- having the person designated by fund to the an act of promulgated’ fect of law thereunder. Just Congress to receive it is duty a ministerial as in the Haskins Case fund was performance compelled of which be can paid Philip- earmarked be to the mandamus, and that from this It is a pine Islands, inso it is ear- instant case necessary corollary that one who has an paid depositors marked to over to the be fund, equitable right in the as in Case Haskins Just person designated, may have relief fund, United States had no interest in the Treasury through mandatory writ of so they have none here. in the Has- Just injunction receivership, making per- kins moneys paid Case the were to be designated party son so as to bind that Philippines by Congress, virtue of an act of person, may and so that the decree afford so in paid the instant case the fund was to proper acquittance to the Government. pool in the as a result of require is too well settled to the citation prom- Bankhead Act regulations and the authority that a suit to an officer ulgated thereunder. inas the Haskins Just perform of the United States to a minis- appellants Case the re- right asserted a duty terial not a suit the United cover moneys because of the unconstitu- requiring States their consent to be sued. tionality act, of the revenue so in the instant As I understand the two cases do no the claim case is based recognize public more than that a officer upon the asserted unconstitutionality of the compelled equitable, to an as well Bankhead there, Act. As we ruled so I performance strictly legal, as to a of a minis- here, we must rule that: “We know duty. terial two question cases in any this or other court to the claim asserted was through one asserted compel the Secretary of the Treasury or right person designated in the Treasurer of the the in- [in money; act to receive the in the instant case stant Treasurer, case the the claim of is asserted in deroga- Agriculture manager], in suit tion of designated of those in the brought against them capaci- in their official regulations act and money. receive the ties, pay out treasury in a manner contrary to that directed Con- agree I further able to am gress.” majority view of the that the suit is not a suit against the I United States because the agree that cannot Mellon v. Orinoco appellees admit in their return to the rule Co., Iron 69 L.Ed. paid to show cause that the amounts into Ormes, Houston v. appellee pool through Deal as trus- 667,1 contrary views I express. paid fund collec- tee of the The real basis of the hold ing of not, paid those cases is were not internal revenue and them, tor of I read point because the United At this in the States. to the United claim no in terest in a fund which is pay- of the' differentiation return factual Treasury, made, Treasurer may being such was compelled from taxes as ments by a court to pay it out in a being denied that manner thus contrary and it was to that directed Congress. If constituted exac- paid into that were amounts the real basis cases, of those then were not tions, being' asserted the Has- opinion. majority Not cited in the *11 pay them over moneys question and in reve- internal any collector paid to being upon duress. is founded appellants. The suit States, e., as taxes. i. were the United nue or If the the ma topic of I understand the duress intended On return of the сontents United States Under not to reason thus: jority question moneys in that the to mean 312, 80 L.Ed. Butler, now not and are paid to the Treasurer been R. R. States, 477, 102 and Union Pacific then A.L.R. United Treasury the in the Missouri, v. Public Service Comm. Co. because disregarded think must I the dismiss on motion is us before the case .promul regulations the Act Bankhead this motion appellants and petition of the the an unconstitu constitute gated the thereunder allegations pleaded the well admits coercion plan of economic petition legislative tional the 22 of paragraph in petition, and pur the production; pool, agricultural control the manager of alleged it the pool by the suit certificates from in the chase of- question moneys in to whom involuntary, compelledas the pro- appellants was other appellants and paid by the were The situation, several evils. de- of the choice least “has in like ducers clearly, majority is found duress thus Treasurer defendant with the posited same ” view, imposed my by the Gov number, . duress . in ernment, a by special symbol . under a depositors of certificates of counsel the admissions also that I think ap theory This was the of the suit in that the appellees in brief their pellants petition, in their briefs. in their cannot United States against one petition state paragraph In 26 of the is or is a suit Whether bind the court. jurisdic- paying their into said Pool that “in United States against one here, they did so because of the coercion and it is a suit question, and if such tional then the United imposedupon duress them the said Bank- not consented States have Act, regulations head there absence neces- the said issued there is an to be sued and presence of which under and actions of taken sary parties without the said defendants ” proceed. para- pursuance In thereof. . The . . ref court has the graph petition [appellees] it stated that erence to the defendants is I of the obviously the Treas- [appellee] “is think reference to defendant the defend Julian States, in- acting sued as officers of the urer of the ants United States United pursuánce such Treas- as such in dividually capacity of the Act Bankhead prayer regulations. supplied] appel The In their brief urer.” [Italiсs say: compulsion defendants lants petition “a direction “The flowed from seeks pay regulations this court to the Bankhead Act from or to the receiver of ” plaintiffs. promulgated . . . view of this Agriculture act, to dismiss under authority of the admission the motion which deposit- part moneys of the assertion of the act The itself. Pools were escape, I un- ed with the Treasurer see no regulations, such, creatures of being Case, der the Haskins conclusion were, tVere creatures of the They act. against suit effect, that the instant is one legal created the act and were a It is of interest to note that in their States. part of the machinery of the act. The petition, appellees to dismiss the as- motion serted, Act, regulations Bankhead of the Secre motion, among grounds other tary Agriculture act, under the against Treasurer, suit as Pools regulations created were all Agriculture, Comptroller part of one plan. and the same compul Agricultural Adjustment Administra- sion flowed from the Act and agencies tion, Agri- and the Administrator of the created under the Act.” appellants’ peti es- Adjustment culturаl Administration “is tion, it, Ias read charge does not States, sentially the United one imposed by depositors duress certificates, consent, sued without byor their agents acting pri has not consented to be sued herein." capacity, charge vate nor does it it, as I read depositors, agents their majority acting Even if view of the private capacity, participators the suit is not one correct, appel still I the statute and the regulations, taken duress of sense, not one lants recover. If the cannot suit sharers unconscionable as com be pared appellants, the United then must the fruits of the I depositors, through contrary appears, think it one duress. On the pleaded agents, petition, for the ultimate of the decree under the facts as effect those will be to withhold from the the that *12 490 subject knowledge the eco or as of
pool much of little the unconstitution were as ality purchasers. pressures Act —as of Act as the nomic of the Bankhead The ory pressures of Court Butler the Act are characterized Butler, supra is, were Case I directed at in United States v. that of duress —as producers, all much at purchased those certificates from the cotton and hence who pool pro those 6 of Act who certificates in. the Section the Bankhead exemption purchased of should at the ones vided that no certificate who certificates any pro pool.3 from the be issued and no allotment made to agreed comply ducer unless he to with the apparently The themselves production conditions limitations on suit, recognize founded, to be well prescribed by Secretary of Agriculture.2 imposed must be those who depositors Both the of Butler, duress found su v. purchasers of and the certificates from pra, imposed, they say to have been for realize, to seeking were out brief, asserting their after the unconstitu legal-economic situation held in United tionality of the Act under Bankhead Butler, supra, to. created v. have been Butler Case: “It therefore follows that by Adjustment Agricultural Act and penalties paid by were made Act, they possessed. the Bankhead on what under duress and such duress flowed The seeking certificate to sought, whom one from from certificates, realize on for which hаd penalties such can be recovered.” [Italics cotton; purchasers no certificate supplied] For this cite Union Pacific cotton, seeking to realize on for which of R. R. Co. Public Service Comm. Mis were, souri, supra, had no in any Neither wherein the certificates. duress was of sense, parties-to realistic the duress. The statute of Missouri and of the Public depositors of the acting certificates had as much Service Commission Missouri of un 2 provided: penalties apply In terms Section inal to shall the violation producer desiring provision.” “A of cotton to se- of this 48 Stat. 601 U.S. tax-exemption may 706). cure a certificate file C.A. § agent application Butler, with an designated by therefor See 297 U. Secretary Agricul- 1, 70-71, of S. L.Ed. accompanied by ture, a statement 914: A.L.R. quantity regulation showing approximate oath volun- “The in fact the' tary. produced presently course, may farmer, refuse of owned, on lands of cotton rented, share-cropped, comply, price control- to of such refusal by applicant during representa- led the loss benefits. The amount of- period Secrеtary by tive fered is intended pressure fixed to be sufficient to exert Agriculture, agree proposed on him to to and also the of acres number regulation. power land in said in actual confer or with- lands cultivation preceding power years, hold unlimited the three benefits is destroy. quantity grower cotton, judgment coerce or If the best accept benefits, applicant, lands elects not to he will said would have produced crops; if all had receive those re- the cultivated land less planted payments application been to cotton. Said ceive will be able to undersell may shall required by him. staté The result well other facts be financial purpose Agriculture. ruin. The coercive and intent exemption by No of the statute is certificate of not obscured the fact shall be is- been'perfectly that it has not successful. sued no allotment shall be made to any producer agrees comply. pointed that, It is out because still unless minority whom such remained the rental conditions and limitations on production payments agricultural were insufficient and benefit commodi- independence Agricul- ties him surrender as the induce to action, gone Congress may, prescribe time, further ture has time Act, cooperation and, pro- Cotton used Bankhead assure the of such power taxing directly programs ducer in the the atory in a reduction more min- Agricultural Adjustment fashion to submission. This Administration prevent expansion progression fully and to more on serves ex- lands leased purpose competitive pose pro- the coercive Government of so-called producer imposed prepent agricultural duction such act. tax Department Agriculture commodities other than clear that cotton and the plan properly exemption allotment of and described the as one to certificates of has any producer minority keep non-cooperating subject issued to in line. shall be pressure. revocation violation economic him This is coeroion of such illusory.” limitations, choice conditions and crim- The asserted *13 consented, collected, ously they have recovery statute, der the the and wherein or referred we are ap by statute which to being against was had latter —there the aware, to suits submit which I am to the of to impediment Missouri parently in certifi- moneys such paid for the refund of agency, through its suit the State case. instant in the involved cates as depositors cer the the Commission. If substantive majority that: duress, did The reason impose the tificates did not appellants upon the wrong inflicted then the participate imposition, its in the Bank- pressures of through the economic them upon basis pay to Act; chosen appellants head had they shared could be be that allowed would pur- imposed by Act instead the tax in the the duress-in such manner fruits of recov- certificates, they have chasing could to for them as to make it unconscionable to; referred statute ered the tax under the prevail, And appellants. na- certificates was this, respect my analysis set above therefore, parity penalty; of a ture forth is were as much correct —that “equity reasoning, maxim subject pressures economic reme- be wrong to without will not suffer a equitable situation —then payments dy” recover the depositors рurchasers for certificates. having same. prior such situation those should, legal right under familiar doc Conceivably if Bankhead Act under the equity, prevail. trines of suit And if this wrong, should Government inflicted a depositors, agents or their remedy, submitting itself have created a private capacity, legal then the respect payments, as suit in of certificate to moneys pos them because the are in concerning it has erroneous collection is, possession session—that agents remedy to is for taxes. But create such a private capacity. courts; Congress, not for the Congress, if sin of omission of the Characterizing in gen somewhat more such, upon deposi- be visited ought not eral' terms what seem me to the essen Congress tors of certificates. The not hav- tial errors in the majority: views On ing provide remedy respect seen fit to facts, reasoning to the infliction of a payments, of certificate I think the courts upon' wrong appellants, substantive should, depositors as between the of certifi- have, upon majority I looked appellant purchasers thereof, cates and Govеrnment, wrong inflicted one groups my equal- both of which were in reasoning but in to the existence of a reme subject ly duress equally the asserted dy, majority seem me to looked have thereof, innocent leave loss where it has depositors wrong one which the moneys fallen and where are. participated inflicting, inflicted inequi of which the in some one table manner And on received the fruits. I majority the law think that the car have proper beyond application ried maxim “equity wrong will not suffer to be with remedy.” It is settled
out a so well as not require general of more than citation maxims, authority ‘every right “the BERT al. et HELVERING. remedy,’ ánd that ‘where the law does has a No. 6893. relief,’ equity redress will give afford Appeals United Court of for theory, just however are subordinate District of Columbia. institutions, positive applied and cannot be Argued June 1937. law, or rules of established either to subvert Decided June 1937. jurisdiction hitherto courts a give the R.C.L., p. Equity, unknown.” § not suffer a “equity will the maxim And remedy” safely without a wrong to be respect wrong asserted of a followed imposed by the Government to have been consented, by virtue 3220, 3226, as amended of Rev.Stat. §§ 1672-1673, 1676), sub U.S.C.A. §§ errone- refund taxes mit to suits