Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

This case is governed by the decision in United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Com

pany, ante, 516.

[No. 418.]

from proceeding with the prosecution, assigning as grounds for the injunction, that the section was void because a regulation of prices of wearing apparel was beyond the power of Congress in the existing state of peace, and because the statute was too vague and deficient in Argued October 19 and 20, 1920. Decided standard to justify a criminal prosecution under it.

The court, on demurrer, held that a status of war existed, and that, although there were some authorities to the contrary, that condition, in its opinion, conferred upon Congress the authority to fix the price at which wearing apparel might be sold, as the business of selling such merchandise was a business in which the public had an interest, and which, therefore, the government could regulate. Pointing out, however, that the question as to the vagueness of the statute was more serious, the court nevertheless declared that it was of opinion that Congress had authority to provide against an unjust or unreasonable price, without fixing such price, by leaving it to be [106] adjusted by courts and juries, depending upon the general economic situation at the time an alleged violation of the prohibition came before them for consideration. The bill was accordingly dismissed, and the case is here on direct appeal.

It is evident from the decision in the L. Cohen Grocery Co. Case, this day announced (255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298), that the decree below was wrong, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, it must be and is reversed. Decree reversed.

A

February 28, 1921.

PPEAL from the District Court of

the United States for the Northern District of Ohio to review a decree which dismissed the bill in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of the provisions of the Lever Act, making it a criminal offense to charge excessive prices for necessaries. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. William L. Day and Joseph G. Fogg filed a brief for appellants:

A court of equity can enjoin a Federal or state official when he is acting under an unconstitutional statute.

Hannah & Hogg v. Clyne, 263 Fed. 599; Lamborn v. McAvoy, 265 Fed. 944; C. A. Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, 264 Fed. 453; Detroit Creamery Co. v. Kinnane, 264 Fed. 845; Temple Fuel Co. v. Tedro, Dist. Ct. Colo. April, 1920; Lewis & Son Drygoods Co. v. Tedro, U. S. Dist. Ct. Colo. April, 1920; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 61 L. ed. 755, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 64 L. ed. 260, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340;

Brandeis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

G. S. WILLARD COMPANY, Henry S. ten, Perry F. Narten, and W. A. Appts.,

V.

Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 52 L.
ed. 714, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 932, 28 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 441, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Rast v. Van
Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, 60 L.
ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct.

Nar-Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Truax,
Duff, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7,
v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131,
Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283.

A. MITCHELL PALMER, Attorney General of the United States, and Edwin S. Wertz, United States Attorney.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 106, 107.) Note.-On decisions under the Lever Act-see notes to Mossew V. United States, 11 A.L.R. 1265, and Standard Chemicals & M. Corp. v. Waugh Chemical Corp. 14 A.L.R. 1059.

On continuance of constitutional guaranties during war or insurrection- -see note to West Virginia ex rel. Mays v. Brown, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 996.

The irreparable injury entitling the plaintiffs to an injunction may arise from an unlawful interference with and interruption of the plaintiffs' business or earnings.

C. A. Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, 264 Fed. 453; Lamborn v. McAvoy, 265 Fed. 944; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 52 L. ed. 714, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Detroit Creamery Co. v. Kinnane, 264 Fed. 845; International News Service v. Associated

1920.

OGLESBY GROCERY CO. v. UNITED STATES.

Press, 248 U. S. 215, 63 L. ed. 211, 2 |
A.L.R. 293, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 68; Board
of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co.
198 U. S. 236, 250, 49 L. ed. 1031, 1039,
25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 637; National Teleg.
News Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 60
L.R.A. 805, 56 C. C. A. 198, 119 Fed.
294; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60
L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Hammer
v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed.
1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep.
529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724.

The right of the plaintiffs to equitable relief is not defeated by the fact that they have an alleged remedy, unless such alleged remedy is complete and adequate.

St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. McElvain, 253 Fed. 123; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 242, 49 L. ed. 169, 177, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18.

All the war powers of Congress, how ever extensive and complete they may be, are subject to constitutional limitations.

Brewer, 139 U. S. 279, 35 L. ed. 190, 11
Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; Hocking Valley R.
Co. v. United States, 127 C. C. A. 285,
210 Fed. 735; Collins v. Kentucky, 234
U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 924.

Solicitor General Frierson argued the
cause and filed a brief for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the

opinion of the court:

In this case the complainants filed their bill to enjoin the Attorney General and the United States attorney from taking steps to enforce against them provisions of the 4th section of the Lever Act on the grounds, among others, of their reto the Constitution of the United States because of their vagueness and want of constitutional standard. On motion, the court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the case is here by direct appeal.

pugnancy

It presents the question under the Constitution which was this day decided in the L. Cohen Grocery Co. Case (255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298); that is, the repugnancy of the provisions relied upon to the Constitution; and therefore, as a re4sult of the ruling in that case, the decree below must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion, and it is so ordered.

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 156, 64 L. ed. 194, 199, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115, 134, 14 L. ed. 75, 83; Ex parte Milligan, Wall. 2, 120, 121, 18 L. ed. 281, 295, 296; United States v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623, 627, 629, 20 L. ed. 474, 475.

Section 4 of the Lever Act, as amended, is unconstitutional because of its arbitrary classification.

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101, 24 L. ed. 616, 618; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 29 L. ed. 463, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110; Scott v.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandeis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Toledo, 1 L.R.A. 688, 36 Fed. 385; [108] OGLESBY GROCERY COMPANY,

Plff. in Err.,

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 108, 109.) This case is governed by the decision in United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Com

Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 28
L. ed. 232, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, 292;
Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692, 697,
34 L. ed. 816, 818, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224;
Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 35 L.
ed. 225, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577; Giozza v.
Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 37 L. ed. 599,
13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; McGehee, Due
Process of Law, p. 60; Willoughby,
Const. pp. 873, 874; Den ex dem. Mur-
February 28, 1921.
ray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. 18 Argued October 19 and 20, 1920. Decided
How. 272, 276, 15 L. ed. 372, 374.

Section 4 of the Lever Act, amended, is so vague and indefinite as to be unconstitutional.

pany, ante, 516.

[No. 457.]

as Note.-On decisions under the Lever
v. United
Act-see notes to Mossew
States, 11 A.L.R. 1265, and Standard
Chemicals & M. Corp. v. Waugh Chemic-
al Corp. 14 A.L.R. 1059.

International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Tozer v. United States, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 23 L. ed. 563; United States v.

On continuance of constitutional guaranties during war or insurrection-see note to West Virginia ex rel. Mays v. Brown, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 996.

535

IN ERROR to the District Court of the | 214, 23 L. ed. 563; Louisville & N. R. United States for the Northern Dis- Co. v. Railroad Commission, 19 Fed. trict of Georgia to review a conviction for charging excessive prices for necessaries. Reversed, with directions to set aside the sentence and quash the indictment.

See same case below, on demurrer to indictment, 264 Fed. 691.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edgar Watkins argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error: The war ended prior to April 13, 1920. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 64 L. ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; The Protector (Freeborn v. The Protector) 12 Wall. 700, 20 L. ed. 463.

Administrative agencies are given legislative powers.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356368, 374, 30 L. ed. 220-225, 227, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Md. 217, 33 Am. Rep. 239; United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677, 686, 36 L. ed. 591, 594, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 764.

Equal privileges and immunities are

denied.

[blocks in formation]

definiteness.

Ballew v. United States, 160 U. S. 187, 197, 40 L. ed. 388, 393, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 263; United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 288, 35 L. ed. 190, 193, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; United States v. Sharp, Pet. C. C. 118, Fed. Cas. No. 16,264, United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 627, 33 L. ed. 1080, 1083, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Tozer v. United States, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; WatersPierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 109, 110, 53 L. ed. 417, 429, 430, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 223, 58 L. ed. 1284, 1288, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 638, 58 L. ed. 1510, 1512, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S.

679; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 866; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. 98 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 S. W. 129; United States v. Capital Traction Co. 34 App. D. C. 592, 19 Ann. Cas. 68; Czarra v. Medical Supers. 25 App. D. C. 443; Ex parte Jackson, 45 Ark. 158; Hayes v. State, 11 Ga. App. 371, 75 S. E. 523; Empire L. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 141 Ga. 413, 81 S. E. 120; Strickland v. Whatley, 142 Ga. 802, 83 S. E. 856; A. M. Holter Hardware Co. v. Boyle, 263 Fed. 134; United States v. L. Cohen Grocer Co. 264 Fed. 218; Retail Dry Goods Asso. v. District Atty. (Colo.) - Fed. —; Detroit Creamery Co. v. Kinnane, 264 Fed. 845; Lamborn v. McAvoy, 265 Fed. 944; United States v. Armstrong, 265 Fed. 683.

fixed by governmental agencies are If, as the trial judge held, the prices prima facie correct without a hearing, due process of law is denied because of deterrents to a test.

Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U. S. 331, 64 L. ed. 596, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep.

338.

Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause and filed a brief for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error is here to reverse a verdict and sentence against it on an indictment containing four counts, of the 4th section of the Lever Act. At charging it with four separate violations the close of all the testimony it requested the court to charge the jury that the provisions of that section relied upon were repugnant to the Constitution of the United States on the grounds, among others, which were held to be sound in the L. Cohen Grocery Co. Case, this day decided (255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298).

It is therefore unnecessary for us to

do more than to apply to this case the rulings made in the Cohen Case, and, in consequence of doing so, to reverse the judgment, [109] with directions to set aside the sentence and quash the indictment; and it is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandeis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

WEEDS, Inc., & Gurdon H. Smith, Plffs. in | 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep.

Err.,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Criminal law indefiniteness of criminal statute profiteering Lever Act delegation of power.

A conspiracy "to exact excessive prices for any necessaries" could not be made punishable criminally, as was at tempted by Congress in the Lever Act of August 10, 1917, § 4, as re-enacted in the Act of October 22, 1919, § 2, without violating U. S. Const., 5th and 6th Amendments, since such provision is not sufficiently specific to create a standard of guilt, and to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. [For other cases, see Criminal Law, I. a; Constitutional Law, III. b, 2, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[No. 558.]

729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Missouri Rate Cases (Knott v. Chicago, B. & Q.. R. Co.) 230 U. S. 474, 508, 57 L. ed. 1571, 1594, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 975; Perrin v. United States, 232 U. S. 478, 486, 58 L. ed. 691, 695, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387; Johnson v. Gearlds, 234 U. S. 422, 446, 58 L. ed. 1383, 1393, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 794; Lincoln Gas & E. L. Co. v. Lincoln, 250 U. S. 256, 268, 63 L. ed. 968, 976, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 454.

October 22, 1919 (when the amended It was not competent for Congress, on statute was enacted), or at the times mentioned in the indictment, to deprive plaintiffs in error of the then fair market value of their property by denying them the right to contract for its sale at such fair market value. If the statute in question be construed as the district court construed it, it is invalid as a deprivation of property without due 5th Amendment.

Argued October 19 and 20, 1920. Decided Process of law, in contravention of the

February 28, 1921.

N ERROR to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Dis trict of New York to review a conviction of charging and conspiring to charge excessive prices for necessaries. Reversed and remanded, with directions to set aside the sentence and quash the indict

ment.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Charles E. Hughes argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Harvey D. Hinman, Thomas B. Kattell, and Charles E. Hughes, Jr., filed a brief for plaintiffs in error:

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & ed. 194, 199, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Ex Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 156, 64 L. L. ed. 281, 295, 297; Mitchell v. Harparte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121-127, 18 mony, 13 How. 115, 14 L. ed. 75; United 20 L. ed. 474, 475; United States v. States v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623, 627–629, Pacific R. Co. 120 U. S. 227, 239, 30 L. ed. 634, 638, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490; Stone v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. ed. 636, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 334, 388, 1191; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. ed. 819, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Reagan v. Farmers Loan & T. Co. 154 U. S. 362, 409, 38 L. ed. 1015, 1027, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 454, 57 L. ed. 1511, 1563, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U. S. 19, 51, 53 L. ed. 382, 399, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. 212 U. S. 1, 13, 53 L. ed. 371, 381, ed. 281; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distil- 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; Chicago & N. leries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, W. R. Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 156, 163, 64 L. ed. 194, 199, 202, 40 Sup. Inters. Com. Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 866; Ct. Rep. 106; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692, 697, 251 U. S. 264, 282, 308, 64 L. ed. 260, 34 L. ed. 816, 818, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224: 266, 278, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Min- Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 662, 37 nesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) L. ed. 599, 601, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; 230 U. S. 352, 473, 57 L. ed. 1511, 1571, Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. Note. On decisions under the Lever 1, 24, 25, 60 L. ed. 493, 504, L.R.A.1917D, Act-see notes to Mossew V. United 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. States, 11 A.L.R. 1265, and Standard 1917B, 713; McGehee, Due Process of Chemicals & M. Corp. v. Waugh Chemic- Law, p. 60; 2 Willoughby, Const. pp. al Corp. 14 A.L.R. 1059. 873, 874; Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S.

The statute, at the time of its enactment and enforcement, was not a valid exercise of the war power. It was not competent for Congress, on October 22, 1919 (when the amended statute was enacted), or at the times when the sales in question were effected, to regulate the prices of retail sales of wearing apparel in wholly intrastate transactions.

182, 187, 64 L. ed. 215, 219, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113.

The statute, as construed by the court below, does not validly define a criminal offense, and by reason of its uncertainty is invalid under the 5th and 6th Amend

ments.

United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 219-221, 23 L. ed. 563, 565; United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 288, 35 L. ed. 190, 193, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 19 Fed. 679; Tozer v. United States, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. 99 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 S. W. 129; United States v. Capital Traction Co. 34 App. D. C. 592, 19 Ann. Cas. 68; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 196 Fed. 690; Hocking Valley R. Co. v. United States, 127 C. C. A. 285, 210 Fed. 735; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Polt, 232 U. S. 165, 58 L. ed. 554, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 221, 58 L. ed. 1284, 1287, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924; United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 242 U. S. 208, 237, 238, 61 L. ed. 251, 267, 268, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 95.

The statute in question is arbitrary class legislation, in violation of the Federal Constitution.

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; International Harvester Co. v. Mis. souri, 234 U. S. 199, 215, 58 L. ed. 1276, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; McFarland v. American Sugar Ref. Co. 241 U. S. 79, 86, 60 L. ed. 899, 904, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692, 697, 34 L. ed. 816, 818, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 662, 37 L. ed. 599, 601, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; McGehee, Due Process of Law, p. 60; Willoughby, Const. pp. 873, 874; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 60 L. ed. 493, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713: United States v. Armstrong, 265 Fed. 683.

Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause and filed a brief for defendant in

error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs in error, having been convicted and sentenced under an indictment containing eight counts, one of which, the sixth, was eliminated at the

trial, prosecute this direct writ of error. All the counts charged violations of the 4th section of the Lever Act; the first, a conspiracy under the section to exact, and to aid and abet in exacting, excessive prices for certain necessaries, that is, articles of wearing apparel; and each of the others a specific sale of such an article at an unjust and unreasonable rate or charge.

The indictment was demurred to because of its repugnancy to the Constitution upon these grounds: (1) Want of power in Congress because of a state of peace; (2) that the provisions in question were so vague and wanting in standard of criminality as to constitute a mere delegation by Congress of legislative power, in violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments; and, furthermore, because, by virtue of the exemptions which they contained, they denied to defendants the equal protection of the laws. The demurrer was overruled, and at the trial which followed the grounds of demurrer were again held to be without merit, and the questions which it presented were saved, and are pressed in the argument at bar as grounds for reversal. As the only difference between the charges in the L. Cohen Grocery Co. Case (255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298) and those in this is the fact that here, in one of the counts, there was a charge of conspiracy to exact excessive prices, it follows that the ruling in the Cohen Case is decisive here unless the provision as to conspiracy to exact excessive prices is sufficiently specific to create a standard, and to inform the [111] accused of the accusation against him, and thus make it not amenable to the ruling in the Cohen Case. But, as we are of the opinion that there is no ground for such distinction, but, on the contrary, that the charge as to conspiracy to exact excessive prices is equally as wanting in standard, and equally as vague as the provision as to unjust and unreasonable rates and charges dealt with in the Cohen Case, it follows, for reasons stated in that case, that the judgment in this must be reversed and the case remanded, with directions to set aside the sentence and quash the indict

ment.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandeis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

« ForrigeFortsett »