# Brief for the Appellant — United States v. Swift & Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0178%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the Appellant - **Published:** January 1, 1932 - **Citation:** 286 U.S. 106 ## Text “ I re ? FILE COPY : | aan ae « IN THE Supreni Court of the Cniied States - OcToBER Term, 1931. on No. 568. Unitep States or AMERYA,- | Vv. Swirt & Company, ET AL. = "No. 569. | AMERICAN WHOLESALE Grocers ASSOCIATION, 7 : -. . = * - - Swirt & Company, ET Au. No. 570. NationaL WHOLESALE Grocers ASSOCIATION, | vz Swirt & Company, ETAL. A? < Statement Under Rule 12, Paragraph 1, by Intervener- Appellant, National Wholesale Grocers Associa = of the United States. : / mum C. Breep, REED, ApBott.& Moraan, Attorneys for National Whole- - Grocers Association of the ~ - ‘United States, ae _ 15 Broad Street, _ Borough of Manhattan, - _ City of New. York. . —_ . Press or Brrow 8. Apams, Wasnineton, D.C. — a as eo x age + ATH rete eS 7 IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States OcroBER Term, 1931. N o. 568. Unitep States oF AMERICA, v. i, Swirt & Company, ET AL. No. 569. ' American WHOLESALE Grocers. AssocraTIoN, | v 7 ras Swirt & Company, ET AL. No. 570.: NATIONAL Wouesate GROCERS Association, v. Swirt & Company, ET AL. \ ‘Statement Under Rule 12, Paragraph 1, by Intervener- Appellant, National Wholesale Grocers Associa- tion of the United States. This appeal is taken pursuant to the Expediting Act (U. S. Code, Title 15, Chap. ‘1, Sec. 29) which _ provides : ‘‘In every suit-in equity brought in any dis- trict eourt of the United States under any of the laws mentioned in the preceding section, 2... wherein the United States is complainant, an ap- peal from the final decree of the district court will lie only to the Supreme Court and must be taken within sixty days from the entry thereof.’’ . The ‘‘laws mentioned in the preceding section’’ are U. 8. Code, Title 15, Chap. 1, Secs. 1-7, inclusive (Sherman Act), and Sec. 25 (Clayton Act). . The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is a ‘‘district court of the United States’’ within the meaning of the above-quoted provision. Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U. 8. 311. - That provision applies with equal force to appeals by interyeners as to appeals by the original parties. U. S. v. California Cooperative Canneries, 279 U. S. 553, 559. , 7 In Continental Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 156, the appeals under the Expediting. Act were taken by interveners (See page 164). a By an order of the Supreme Court of. the District of Columbia, entered November 5, 1921 ( Cumulative* _ p. 146) National Wholesale Grocers Association of the United States was granted leave to intervene in the above-entitled suit for the purpose and to. the * extent of being heard © | ‘ ‘in opposition to any proposed change. im the consent decree which would deprive the iter- weners of the protection now secured by said decree.” => : “The Record has not yet been printed. The cumulative page numbers refer to the pages of the Record (partly printed and partly type- written) transmitted by the clerk of the court below, counting con- secutively from p. 1 of the Petition. ‘ 3 Since the granting of said order this intervener has actively cooperated in the Government’s efforts to sustain said Consent Decree and to restore it to effective operation.. When the question of the valid- ity of the Consent Decree was before this Court (Swift ~& Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311), thts interverfer supported the position of the Government with brief ; and oral argument and its status as a proper party was not questioned. In the present proceeding this intervener was active ‘in opposing modification of: the Consent Decree, and its right to appear and pagtic- ipate as a party litigant was fully recognized by the court below (R. 398, 399, 401, Statement of Evi- dence, p. 1316).