Rodgers v. United States (332 U.S. 371)

U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 10, 1947 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)

Citation
332 U.S. 371 · 68 S. Ct. 5
Docket
No. 58
Argued
October 16, 1947
Decided
November 10, 1947
Term
October Term 1947
Vote
7–2
Majority author
Justice Black
Issue area
Criminal Procedure
Disposition
Reversed
Outcome
Petitioning party won
Ideological direction
Liberal

How the Justices voted

Majority
Chief Justice Vinson, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Douglas, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Reed, Justice Black (wrote), Justice Murphy
Dissenting
Justice Burton (wrote), Justice Rutledge

Opinion on Justia

Opinion excerpt

Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. In the years 1940, 1941 and 1942 the petitioner produced on his farms and sold more cotton than the quota allotted him under authority of Part IV of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended. 52 Stat. 31, 55-60; 55 Stat. 203; 7 U. S. C. §§ 1281 et seq. The United States filed this suit against petitioner to recover money “penalties” to which § 348 of the Act makes non-cooperating farmers “subject” who market cotton from their farms in excess of their quota. The District Court rendered judgment for $7,039.52 in penalties plus interest at 6% from the various dates the penalties became due to the date of judgment. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 158 F. 2d 835. The Fifth Circuit had previously decided that no interest is allowable on such penalties prior to judgment. United States v. West Texas Cottonoil Co., 155 F. 2d 463. We therefore granted certiorari limited to this single question. 331 U. S. 799. Since penalties under the Agricultural Adjustment Act are imposed under an Act of Congress, they bear interest only if and to the extent such interest is required by federal law. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U. S. 697, 714-716; Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 289, 295-297. There is no language in the Agricultural Adjustment Act or in any other act of Congress which specifically…

Excerpt of a 17,206-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.

← Back to the decisions database