1. This Court's decision per curiam,
358 U.
S. 644, reversing the judgment below on the Government's
earlier direct appeal in this case, necessarily established that
(1) this Court had jurisdiction over that appeal, (2) the relevant
provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 embraced the
conduct of appellee complained of, (3) the Act was constitutional
as applied in the premises, and (4) the Government was entitled to
the relief sought, subject only to the District Court's resolution
of appellee's procedural defense to the effect that the Government
had failed to comply with conditions requisite to the effective
establishment of a wheat acreage allotment for appellee. Pp.
371 U. S.
19-20.
2. In No. 139, Misc., the Government's motion for leave to file
a petition for writ of mandamus and its petition for writ of
mandamus are granted, but the formal writ will not be issued if the
District Court promptly takes steps (1) to set aside its order of
February 26, 1962, denying the Government's motion for judgment,
(2) to proceed to resolve Haley's procedural defense, (3) if such
defense is found to be insufficient, to enter final judgment in
favor of the United States, and (4) if such defense is found
sufficient, to enter judgment accordingly. P.
371 U. S.
20.
3. In view of the disposition of No. 139, Misc., it is not
necessary to consider whether this Court has jurisdiction over the
Government's appeal in No. 148, and that appeal is dismissed. P.
371 U. S.
20.
Page 371 U. S. 19
PER CURIAM.
The order of the District Court, dated February 26, 1962,
denying the motion of the United States for judgment in this action
evidently rested on a misconception of the scope and effect of this
Court's per curiam opinion on the Government's earlier appeal,
358 U. S. 644, and
of its judgment issued February 24, 1959. In light of the issues
tendered in the papers filed on that appeal, there can be no doubt
that this Court's judgment finally established the Government's
right to the relief sought in this action, subject only to the
District Court's resolution of Haley's procedural defense, still
unadjudicated, to the effect that the Government had failed to
comply with conditions requisite to the effective establishment of
a wheat acreage allotment for Haley.
See Jurisdictional
Statement of the United States and Appellee's Statement Opposing
Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 587, October
Term, 1958; Appellee's Motion to Vacate the Court's Judgment of
February 24, 1959, denied April 27, 1959, 359 U.S. 977; and
Appellee's Motion for Rehearing, denied April 27, 1959, 359 U.S.
981.
More particularly, this Court then necessarily decided (1) that
it had jurisdiction over such appeal; (2) that the relevant
provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31,
as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 1281
et seq., embraced the
conduct of Haley complained of in this action; and (3) that the Act
was constitutional as applied in the premises. Under the remand
ordered by this Court's judgment of February 24, 1959, there was
thus left open to the District Court only the adjudication of
Haley's above-mentioned procedural defense. The District Court
erred in believing that it was not foreclosed from inquiring into
this Court's jurisdiction over the
Page 371 U. S. 20
Government's appeal and from reinstating its own original
judgment in the case, which appears to have been the effect of its
denial of the Government's motion for judgment following remand.
See In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.
S. 247,
160 U. S.
255.
The District Court's error should be rectified without delay,
and we think that the proper means for accomplishing this is by
mandamus. 28 U.S.C. § 1651;
see In re Potts,
166 U. S. 263;
United States v. United States District Court,
334 U. S. 258,
334 U. S.
263-264. Accordingly, in No. 139, Misc., the
Government's motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of
mandamus, and its petition for a writ of mandamus, are granted.
We shall not, however, issue a formal writ at this time, since
we are confident that the District Court, once its misconception of
our judgment of February 24, 1959, has been called to its
attention, will promptly take steps (1) to set aside its order of
February 26, 1962, denying the motion of the United States for
judgment; (2) to proceed to resolve Haley's aforesaid procedural
defense; (3) if such defense is found to be insufficient, to enter
a final judgment in this action in favor of the United States; and
(4) if such defense is found sufficient, to enter judgment
accordingly.
Cf. Ex parte Northern Pac. R. Co.,
280 U. S. 142,
530.
In view of our disposition in No. 139, Misc., it becomes
unnecessary to consider whether this Court has jurisdiction over
the Government's appeal in No. 148, and the motion to dismiss the
appeal in that case is accordingly granted and the appeal is
dismissed.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or
decision of these cases.
* Together with No. 139, Misc.,
United States v. United
States District Court for the Northern District of Teas, on
motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and on
petition for writ of mandamus.
