# Opposition Brief — Shockley v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_1970%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1948
- **Citation:** 334 U.S. 850

## Text

EN S510. chan SWAT beeen sone eeaee vats UCN SME
ESE ST ar ete eR tea 4 hy Seer Sp RINE, eRe Rey ge
MINE, oc ia sav casvas uedeee sae es ee deeeenneys
I oe os a og Ce aye cere t Pee Ve Ae

ec ng eat Sa tay carn eiged W SE OL rar See eae Ae oe
EE Fury oc ee eeR eee Raa PAR DS ANAEY RbEEED EGA OA
DI Sct re ere ch edt hth STU ine ahere DELS ECS od :

CITATIONS

Cases:

Farm Security Administration v. Herren, 165 F. 2d 554,
certiorari denied, 333 U. 8. 875.....................
Federal Housing Administration v. Burr, 309 U. S. 242. .
Franklin v. United States, 308 U. 8. 516................
Keifer d Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation,
DEPT 2 Sb A ous Caachi bene bea weied na eens
Klepinger v. Rhodes, 140 F. 2d 697, certiorari denied, 322
ME Pee oe CUENG Lhe iambet cule dawe meee cies
Matlaw Corporation v. War Damage Corporation, 164
F, 2d 281, certiorari denied, 333 U. S. 863............
Merchant Fleet Corporation v. Harwood, 281 U.S. 519.
Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. 8. 382...............
Olson v. United States Spruce Products Corporation,
NSS a Oe roo
Otis Elevator Company v. United States, 18 F. Supp.
BATE SAR pi Ee any op ee

EE 6 iro er RA sede ey nid alan KR Bad we aa wkd
Ridgley v. United States, 45 A. 24475 .................
Rowe v. Nolan Finance Company, 142 F. 2d 93.........
Sloan Shipyards v. U. S. Fleet Corporation, 258 U. S.

549 TE GN RAS Ue DISA ANGaS Gs ah age ad REN ade abe ee

United States v. Jones,131U.S.1............. Pleats
United States v. Shaw, 309 U. 8. 495..................
United States v. Sheriff Motor Co., 63 F. Supp. 685

United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584
United States v. Turner, 47 F. 2d 86...................
United States v. Weisenbloom, 168 F. 2d 698
Wittek v. United States, 54 A. 2d 747

Statutes :

Act of February 17, 1909, 35 Stat. 623, Ch. 134.........
Act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat. 1310, Ch. 125, See. 1.....
Act of March 27, 1942, 56 Stat. 174, 175

(1)

oUNN NH

CoNNXNoonrtnt ao worn

wan

Statutes—Continued Page
Act of June 30, 1947, 61 Stat. 202, 15 U.S.C. 603 3
Municipal Court Act of 1942, Sec. 4, 56 Stat. 190, 192,

District of Columbia Code, See. 11-755 2,5

Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act (Act of January
22, 1932, ¢. 8, 47 Stat. 5, as amended by the Act of June
19, 1934, 48 Stat. 1105, 1108 and by the Act of June
10, 1941, 55 Stat. en

See. 4
See. 5(d)

28 U.S. C. 1331 -)

28 U.S.C. 1346 (formerly ‘See. 24 (20) of the ‘Judicial
Code) .

District of Columbia Code, See. 11-305

District of Columbia Code, See. 11-306

aww

coauw

Miscellaneous :
7 Fed. Reg. 2531-2532 cede a

—

Ynthe Supreme Court of the Winited States

OcrToBER TERM, 1948

No. 492

RussELL R. KNOWLES AND SYLv1A KNOWLES, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS
v.

War DaMaGE CorPORATION, AN INSTRUMENTALITY
OF THE Unirep STaTEs OF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

OPINIONS BELOW
The United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia did not render an opinion.
The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia (R. 34-39) has not yet
been reported.

JURISDICTION
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was en-
tered on October 4, 1948 (R. 40). The petition for
writ of certiorari was filed on December, 31 1948.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under
28 U.S.C. 1254.

(1)

—

2

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the courts below erred in holding that
this action, involving admittedly less than $3,000,
brought against a subsidiary of the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation empowered to ‘‘sue and be
sued in any court of competent jurisdiction’’, lay
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal
Court for the District of Columbia.

STATUTE INVOLVED
Section 4 of the Municipal Court Act of 1942,
56 Stat. 190, 192 (See. 11-755 of the District of
Columbia Code) provides in part:

(a) The Municipal Court for the District of
Yolumbia, * * * shall have exclusive juris-
diction of civil actions, including counter-
claims and crossclaims, in which the claimed
value of personal property or the debt or dam-
age claimed, exclusive of interest, attorneys’
fees, protest fees, and costs, does not exceed
the sum of $3,000 * * *.

STATEMENT

The respondent, War Damage Corporation,’ was
created on December 13, 1941 (7 Fed. Reg. 2531) by
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation pursuant
to Section 5d of the Reconstruction Finance Cor-
poration Act. (Act of January 22, 1932, ¢. 8, 47
Stat. 5, as amended by the Act of June 19, 1934, 48
Stat. 1105, 1108 and by the Act of June 10, 1941, 55

' Originally it was called the “War Insurance Corporation”.
7 Fed. Reg. 2531. By amendment to its charter its name was
changed on March 30, 1942 to “War Damage Corporation”
7 Fed. Reg. 2531-2532.

3

Stat. 248, 249). Its purpose as expressed in its char-
ter was to provide insurance against damage to
property through enemy attack. Its charter pro-
vided that it should have power ‘‘to sue and be sued
in any court of competent jurisdiction’’ and that it
should ‘‘in all other respects be possessed of the
privileges and immunities that are conferred upon
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation under
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act, as
amended.’”’? Its authorized capital stock was
$100,000,000 all of which was subseribed for by
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and was
not transferable. 7 Fed. Reg. 2531.

Respondent provided insurance without compen-
sation until July 1, 1942 when payment of an an-
nual premium was required. 56 Stat. 175. On
July 20, 1942, on payment of a $9 premium, respond-
ent issued a policy to petitioners covering their
home and automobile (R. 27-29).

This action was instituted in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia by
petitioners ‘‘on their own behalf * * * and on
behalf of all others similarly situated’”’ (R. 2). The
complaint alleged that ‘‘The matter in controversy
arises under the Laws of the United States, is a suit
against a corporation organized under an Act of

2The Reconstruction Finance Corporation has power “to
sue and be sued, to complain and to defend, in any court
of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” Act of January
22, 1932, Sec. 4, 47 Stat. 6; Act of June 30, 1947, 61 Stat. 202,

15 U. 8. C. 603.
8 There is no allegation that a second premium was ever paid.

4

Congress, and jurisdiction is also vested in this
Court by paragraphs 301 and 306 of Title 11 of the
Code of Laws of the District of Columbia’”’ (R. 2-3).
It further alleged that the respondent has in its
possession ‘‘sums of money amounting to $300,000,-
000 more or less which, under the insurance pro-
gram * * * are the equitable property of the
plaintiffs and of all other holders of policies issued
by the defendant, in the nature of refundable un-
earned excess premiums’’ (R. 6). It prayed the
court to enjoin the respondent from paying into
the United States Treasury any of the surplus in
its possession ; to require an accounting ; to impress
a trust upon these funds for the pro rata benefit of
all policyholders ; to reform the insurance policies;
and to direct the payment of the surplus funds,
after deduction of necessary costs and expenses, to
the policyholders in proportion to their interests
(R. 7-8). Petitioners’ insurance contract attached
to the complaint showed that their interest was not
more than $18 (R. 27-31).

On motion of the respondent made on the ground,
among others, of lack of the requisite jurisdictional
amount, the complaint was dismissed (R. 33). On
appeal, the court below affirmed the judgment of
the district court (R. 40). It held that petitioners
could not aggregate their claims with those simi-
larly situated to meet the jurisdictional minimum
of $3,000 required for suit in the District Court and

5

that, by statute, exclusive jurisdiction lay with the
Municipal Court. (R. 35-38)

ARGUMENT

Since 1909, the Municipal Court for the District
of Columbia has enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction of
certain classes of cases (Act of February 17, 1909,
35 Stat. 623, ch. 134; Act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat.
1310, ch. 125, see. 1). Most recently that jurisdic-
tion has been enlarged by Section 4 of the Municipal
Court Act of 1942 (56 Stat. 192, Sec. 11-755 of the
District of Columbia Code) to include all ‘‘civil ac-
tions * * * in which the claimed value of personal
property or the debt or damages claimed, exclusive
of interest, attorneys’ fees, protest fees, and costs,
does not exceed the sum of $3,000.’’ Both courts be-
low held, correctly we submit, that this action in-
volving as it does at most the sum of $18 lay within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court
and therefore outside that of the District Court.
Petitioners’ argument to the contrary is that this
is a suit against the United States; that the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia
like the other district courts enjoys concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court of Claims under the
Tucker Act of suits against the United States; *

428 U.S. C. 1346 (a) (2) formerly Section 24 (20) of the
Judicial Code provides that (a) “The district courts shall
have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims,
of: * * * (2) Any other civil action or claim against the
United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either
upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regu-

—

6

and that consequently the District Court had juris-
diction of this suit under that Act (Pet. pp. 7-9).

The fallacy in petitioners’ argument lies in the
assumption that all suits which affect the interests
of the United States necessarily proceed under the
Tucker Act. Sovereign immunity to suit may he
waived by Congress, either (1) by statute, as in
the Tucker Act, which authorizes direct suit against
the United States, or (2) by providing for the con-
duct of government business by corporate agents,
such as respondent, not endowed with the Govern-
ment’s immunity and thus amenable to suit. United
States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 501; Keifer & Keifer
v. R. F. C., 306 U. 8. 381. Suits against govern-
mental corporations authorized ‘‘to sue and be
sued’’ are not considered suits against the United
States. Olson v. United States Spruce Prod. Corp.,
267 U.S. 462; Sloan Shipyards v. U. S. Fleet Cor-
poration, 258 U. 8. 549; Merchant Fleet Corp. v.
Harwood, 281 U. 8. 519. Even in the absence of
statute, suit may be brought against such corpora-
tions in State courts, (Sloan Shipyards v. U. 8S.
Fleet Corp., supra; Olson v. United States, supra)
for tort (Keifer & Keifer v. R. F. C., supra, at pp.

lation of an executive department, or upon any expressed or
implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or
unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” The
District Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia has the same powers and jurisdiction as the Dis-
trict Courts of the United States. See 11-305, District of
Columbia Code.

7

394-397), and costs thereon allowed (R. F. C. v.
Menthan Corp., 312 U.S. 81).

The complaint in the instant case is addressed to
the liberal rules which applies to suits against cor-
porate agents and not to the limited consent given
by the Tucker Act to suits against the United States.
If this action were brought under the Tucker Act,
petitioners could not secure the relief for which
they pray since equitable decrees such as are sought
here lie outside the jurisdiction of the courts under
that Act. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S.
584, 588 ; United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1; United
States v. Turner, 47 F. 2d 86 (C. A. 8). Nor is it
clear that the complaint states a cause of action on
a contract of the United States, express or implied
in fact, a prerequisite for a Tucker Act suit. Cf.
U.S.v. Algoma Lumber Co., 305 U. 8. 415, 419, 423 ;
Farm Sec. Adm. v. Herren, 165 F. 2d 554, 562, 564-
565 (C. A. 8), certiorari denied, 333 U. S. 875.
Moreover, since the complaint on its face asks for
disposition of a sum well in excess of the $10,000
maximum fixed by the Act, it probably lies outside
the jurisdiction of the district court. Cf. United
States v. Sherwood, supra; Franklin v. United
States, 308 U. S. 516; Otis Elevator Co. v. United
States, 18 F. Supp. 87 (S. D. N. Y.). Finally, since
the Tucker Act authorizes suit only in the district
courts (cf. Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S.
382, 388), the Municipal Court would not have even

a

8

the concurrent jurisdiction which petitioners un-
questioningly assume. (Pet. 5, 11.)

Petitioners’ ability to proceed free from the
limitations of the Tucker Act derives from the fact
that respondent is specifically authorized ‘‘to sue
and be sued.’’ But while a governmental agency
endowed with such authority ‘‘is not less amenable
to judicial process than a private enterprise under
like circumstances would be,’’ it is not more so.
F. H. A. v. Burr, 309 U. 8. 242, 245, 250; Matlaw
Corp. Vv. War Damage Corp., 164 F. 2d 281 (C. A.7),
certiorari denied, 333 U. S. 863. Having elected
to proceed against a governmental corporation as
though it were a private enterprise, petitioners
must accept the limitations inherent in the remedy
they have elected. Since the district court clearly
lacks jurisdiction in actions against private enter-
prises involving less than $3,000, the suit was
properly dismissed. Klepinger v. Rhodes, 140 F.
2d 697 (C. A. D. C.), certiorari denied, 322 U. S.
734; Rowe v. Nolan Finance Co., 142 F. 2d 93
(C. A. D. C.).

The provision of the Judicial Code (28 U.S. C.
1331) which prescribes the same jurisdictional
minimum for the district courts, would equally com-
pel this result. Indeed, the Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit has affirmed a judgment dis-
missing for failure to meet the $3,000 minimum an
action against respondent in all respect identical

9

to this one. Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp.,
164 F. 2d 281, certiorari denied, 333 U. S. 863.°

CONCLUSION

The petition for certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,

Vv Puiu B. PERLMAN,
/ Solicitor General.
H. G. Morison,
Assistant Attorney General.
4, PauL A. SWEENEY,
eo Epwarp H. Hickey,
CeceLia H. Goetz,
Attorneys.

JANUARY 1949.

5 As a subsidiary ground for granting certiorari, petitioners
assert a conflict between the decision below and United States
v. Sheriff Motor Co., 63 F. Supp. 685 (D. D. C.) (Pet. 9-11).
There the court sustained the right of the United States to
bring an action for less than $3,000 in the district court be-
cause of the special statutory language giving that court cog-
nizance of all actions “in which the United States shall be
plaintiffs or complainants.” Sec. 11-306 Dist. of Col. Code.
Since in this action the United States is neither plaintiff nor
complainant,the lack of relevance of this decision and of others
like it is clear. Ridgley v. United States, 45 A. 2d 475 (Mun.
Ct. App., D. C.) ; Wittek v. United States, 54 A. 2d 747 (Mun.
Ct. App., D. C.); ef. United States v. Weisenbloom, 168 F. 2d
698 (C. A. 2).

wu.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1948 e21744 s72

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_1970%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.