Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch et al. (331 U.S. 752)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 16, 1947 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 331 U.S. 752 · 67 S. Ct. 1493
- Decided
- June 16, 1947
- Term
- October Term 1946
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Rutledge
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
MR. Justice Rutledge delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is the fourth in a series seeking here a determination of the invalidity, on constitutional grounds, of the First and Second Renegotiation Acts and allied legislation. In Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, 323 U. S. 316, and in Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129, the Royalty Adjustment Act was attacked. The Alma Motor case was remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for a determination of the Act’s applicability. The suit in the Coffman case was by a patent owner to restrain his licensees from paying accrued royalties to the Government pursuant to the Act’s provisions. We held that the complaint had been rightly dismissed for want of equity jurisdiction, since the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law by suit against its licensees, and also for want of a justiciable case or controversy. In Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U. S. 371, a government contractor challenged the Renegotiation Acts. The complaint sought to enjoin the Secretary of the Navy from taking action “which would stop payment by the government of money lawfully in the United States Treasury to satisfy the government’s and not the Secretary’s debt to the appellant.” 326 U. S. at 374. Accordingly we held that the Government was an indispensable party. Since it neither had been joined in the suit nor had consented to be sued…
Excerpt of a 55,856-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.