Skip to content


Koller Vs. United States - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number359 U.S. 309
AppellantKoller
RespondentUnited States
Excerpt:
.....stewart, with whom mr. justice douglas and mr. justice whittaker join, dissenting. i do not agree that disposition of this case is controlled by the decision in rex trailer co. v. united states, 350 u. s. 148 . believing that § 26(b)(1) of the surplus property act of 1944, 40 u.s.c. § 489(b)(1), imposes a civil penalty, and that an action thereunder is therefore subject to the five-year limitation provided in 28 u.s.c. § 2462, i would reverse. cf. united states ex rel. marcus v. hess, 317 u. s. 537 ; erie basin metal products, inc. v. united states, 150 f.supp. 561 (ct.cl.). see priebe & sons v. united states, 332 u. s. 407 .
Judgment:
Koller v. United States - 359 U.S. 309 (1959)
U.S. Supreme Court Koller v. United States, 359 U.S. 309 (1959)

Koller v. United States

No. 362

Argued March 26, 30, 1959

Decided April 20, 1959

359 U.S. 309

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Syllabus

A suit for damage under § 26(b)(1) of the Surplus Property Act is not a suit to enforce a civil fine, penalty or forfeiture and, therefore, is not subject to the five-year limitation of 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148 .

255 F.2d 865 affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment, 255 F.2d 865, is affirmed. Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148 .

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER join, dissenting.

I do not agree that disposition of this case is controlled by the decision in Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148 . Believing that § 26(b)(1) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 40 U.S.C. § 489(b)(1), imposes a civil penalty, and that an action thereunder is therefore subject to the five-year limitation provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2462, I would reverse. Cf. United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537 ; Erie Basin Metal Products, Inc. v. United States, 150 F.Supp. 561 (Ct.Cl.). See Priebe & Sons v. United States, 332 U. S. 407 .


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //