UNITED STATES
v.
GETTINGER AND POMERANTZ, COPARTNERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendants were convicted under the Lever Act for selling women's apparel at unjust rates and paid a five-thousand-dollar fine, but after the Supreme Court declared that section of the Lever Act unconstitutional, they sought repayment of the fine. The Supreme Court held that the defendants' attempt to reserve rights regarding the fine's repayment in the event of the Act's unconstitutionality amounted only to a protest and did not create a binding contract obligating the government to refund the money, as neither the court nor federal officers had authority to make such an agreement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
The District Court entered final judgment for defendants in error March 9, 1925, and certified that the only question involved was one of jurisdiction.
By an indictment returned into the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, February 1920, defendants in error were charged with violating § 4 of the Lever Act, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276, 277, as amended October 22,1919, c. 80,41 Stat. 297, 298, by selling women’s apparel at unjust and unreasonable rates. They entered pleas of nolo contendere October 8, 1920, and each undertook to “ waive any and all claims which I now have or hereafter may have to any and all fines which the court may see fit to impose upon me upon such plea, except in the event that the so-called Lever Act under, which said indictment is founded shall be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.” The court adjudged them guilty and imposed a fine of five thousand dollars. This was paid to the clerk and by him passed into the Treasury of the United States. •
February 28, 1921, this court held § 4 of the Lever Act invalid. United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81. April 25, 1924, the court below undertook to set, aside the judgment of conviction and sentence entered there October 8, 1920.
The present proceeding, begun May 24, 1924, set up the claim that under the above-stated facts the United States became obligated to repay to plaintiffs in error the sum of five thousand dollars with interest. A demurrer which raised the question of the court’s jurisdiction was overruled and the matter come here by direct writ of error. The attempt by plaintiffs in error to reserve rights if the Lever Act should be held unconstitutional amounted at most to a protest, possibly sufficient to overcome the suggestion of an estoppel, but no contract arose out of it which obligated the United States to return the fine. Neither the court nor any federal officer had authority to make such an agreement. The controlling general principles are sufficiently stated in Russell v. United States, 182 U. S. 516, 530; United States v. Holland-America Lijn, 254 U. S. 148; United States v. Minnesota Mutual Investment Co., 271 U. S. 212.
The court below was without jurisdiction and should have dismissed the complaint. Its judgment must be reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pasha v. United States, 484 F.2d 630 (7th Cir. 1973)…S.Ct. 552, 95 L.Ed. 738 (1951). For the reasons given, the judgment is affirmed as to recovery of the principal sums, and is reversed as to the award of interest. . The parties stipulated that value to he $4,600. . In United States v. Gettinger, 272 U.S. 734, 47 S.Ct. 276, 71 L.Ed. 499 (1927), the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s overruling of a demurrer to a complaint seeking recovery of a fine after the district court had set aside the conviction following its decision that the statute subj…
-
Deppe v. Lufkin, 116 F.2d 483 (1st Cir. 1940)…ubject to the fines on the rejection of its unsound protest. However, it is clearly the law that where there is no mistake of fact there can be no' recovery of fines or - taxes voluntarily paid under mistake of law. United States v. Gettinger, 1927, 272 U.S. 734, 47 S.Ct. 276, 71 L.Ed. 499; United States v. Wilson, 1897, 168 U.S. 273, 18 S.Ct. 85, 42 L.Ed. 464; Elliott v. Swartwout, 1836, 10 Pet. 137, 153, 9 L.Ed. 373; Blumenthal v. United States, D.C. S.D.Cal. 1925, 4 F. 2d 808; cf. United States v. Hollan…
-
DeCECCO v. United States, 485 F.2d 372 (1st Cir. 1973)…t court jurisdiction over any civil claim of less than $10,000 “founded . ■ . . upon the Constitution”. See United States v. Rothstein, 187 F. 268 (7th Cir. 1911). Authorities cited by the government do not bar recovery. United States v. Gettinger, 272 U.S. 734, 47 S.Ct. 276, 71 L.Ed. 499 (1927), construed only that portion of the Tucker Act dealing with “express or implied contract [s] with the United States.” § 1346(a)(2). The Court did not discuss the clauses relevant here. See United States v. Lewis, 3…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1921)
- United States v. Minn. Mut. Inv. Co., 271 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1926)
- United States v. Nederlandsch-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij (holland-America Lijn.), 254 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1920)
- Russell v. United States, 182 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1901)