1920.

WEED & CO. v. LOCKWOOD.

105

APPEAL from the District Court of Com. 318; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet.

United States for the Western
District of New York to review a decree
which dismissed the bill in a suit to en-
join a criminal prosecution for charging
Re-
excessive prices for necessaries.
versed.

See same case below, 264 Fed. 453.
The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Simon Fleischmann argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Edward L. Jellinek, Martin Clark, James O. Moore, and John W. Ryan, filed a brief for appellant:

Sections 1 and 4 of the Lever Act, as amended, are so vague and indefinite as

to be violative of the 6th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and are there

fore void.

International Harvester Co. v.

Ken

tucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34
Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. Kentucky,
234 U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 924; United States v. Brewer,
139 U. S. 278-288, 35 L. ed. 190-193, 11

Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; Chicago & N. W. R.
Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. Com.
Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 866; Tozer v. United
States, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed.
917; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad

Commission, 19 Fed. 679; 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. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 23 L. ed.
563; Czarra v. Medical Supers. 25 App.
D. C. 443; Hocking Valley R. Co. V.
United States, 127 C. C. A. 285, 210 Fed.
735; United States v. Capitol Traction
Co. 31 App. D. C. 599, 19 Ann. Cas. 68.
The provisions of the Lever Act pro-
hibiting the sale of necessaries for any
unjust or unreasonable rate or charge
are inoperative and unenforceable in the
absence of regulations and orders made
by the President as to such necessaries
as it is desired to control.

People ex rel. Cayuga Nation v. Land
Office Comrs. 207 N. Y. 48, 100 N. E.
735; Mason v. Fearson, 9 How. 248, 13
L. ed. 125; 12 C. J. Const. Law, p. 864,
§ 365 and numerous cases there cited.

The provisions of the Lever Act prohibiting the sale of necessaries at unjust or unreasonable prices are unconstitutional, even as a war measure.

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 64 L. ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. ed. 281; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso. 166 U. S. 319, 41 L. ed. 1020, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 5 L.R.A. 559, 22 N. E. 670; 2 Kent,

627, 657, 7 L. ed. 542, 553.

Section 4 of the Lever Act is invalid in that it deprives dealers in wearing apparel of property without due process of law by denying to them the equal protection of the laws.

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; International Harvester Co. v. MisL.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; souri, 234 U. S. 199, 58 L. ed. 1276, 52 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. 837-844; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 24, 25, 60 L. ed. 493, 504, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B,

713.

A suit in equity with a decree for a permanent injunction against the United States attorney is proper, where he is seeking to enforce a criminal statute which is unconstitutional, or is transcending his authority under a valid rights and property statute, threatened.

are

Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligott, 170 C. C. A. 487, 259 Fed. 525; 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; Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligott, 170 C. C. A. 487, 259 Fed. 321; 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; 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; Municipal Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 225 N. Y. 89, 121 N. E. 772, P.U.R.1919C, 364; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 64 L. ed. 260, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65, 46 L. ed. 808, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Waite v. Macy, 246 U. S. 606, 62 L. ed. 892, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 395.

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

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

An indictment having been returned against the appellant in the court below, for violating the 4th section of the Lever Act by selling wearing apparel at an unjust or unreasonable rate or charge, it filed its bill in that court, praying that the United States attorney be enjoined

533

pany, ante, 516.

[No. 418.]

from proceeding with the prosecution, This case is governed by the decision in assigning as grounds for the injunction, | United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Comthat 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 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.

Argued October 19 and 20, 1920. Decided
February 28, 1921.

APPEAL 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

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

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-
ray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. 18 Argued October 19 and 20, 1920.
February 28, 1921.
How. 272, 276, 15 L. ed. 372, 374.

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 Company, ante, 516.

Section 4 of the Lever Act, as Note.-On decisions under the Lever amended, is so vague and indefinite as Act-see notes to Mossew V. United to be unconstitutional.

IN

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

The facts are stated in the opinion.

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 679; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Dey, 1 for charging excessive prices for neces- L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 325, 35 saries. Reversed, with directions to set Fed. 866; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. aside the sentence and quash the indict- 98 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 Am. St. ment. 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; United States v. Armstrong, 265 Fed. Lamborn v. McAvoy, 265 Fed. 944; 683.

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.

Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 430, 20 L. ed. 449, 453; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 43 L. ed. 432, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; United States v. Armstrong, 265 Fed. 683.

Arbitrarily to deprive an owner of part of the value of his property is taking property for public use without compensation, and denies due process of law.

Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Payne, 33 Ark. 816, 34 Am. Rep. 55.

The statute and the indictment are void for uncertainty, vagueness, and in

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.

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, charging it with four separate violations

of the 4th section of the Lever Act. At 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 decided (255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 the L. Cohen Grocery Co. Case, this day 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.,

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.]

Argued October 19 and 20, 1920.

February 28, 1921.

Decided

N ERROR to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District 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:

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 at such fair market value. If the statthem the right to contract for its sale ute in question be construed as the district court construed it, it is invalid as a deprivation of property without due process of law, in contravention of the 5th Amendment.

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 156, 64 L. ed. 194, 199, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121-127, 18 L. ed. 281, 295, 297; Mitchell v. Harmony, 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. 212 U. S. 1, 13, 53 L. ed. 371, 381, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 866; 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; 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 Chemicals & M. Corp. v. Waugh Chemical Corp. 14 A.L.R. 1059. 65 L. ed.

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.

Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. ed. 281; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 156, 163, 64 L. ed. 194, 199, 202, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 282, 308, 64 L. ed. 260, 266, 278, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 473, 57 L. ed. 1511, 1571,

1917B, 713; McGehee, Due Process of Law, p. 60; 2 Willoughby, Const. pp. 873, 874; Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S.