Land, Chairman, United States Maritime Commission, et al. v. Dollar et al.
330 U.S. 731 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A suit against a government official to recover property is not a suit against the sovereign barred by immunity if the official's actions in holding the property are alleged to be beyond their statutory authority. In such cases, the court must hear the merits of the claim to determine if it has jurisdiction.
Facts:
- In 1937, Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc., Ltd. was experiencing severe financial difficulties.
- In 1938, the stockholders of Dollar Steamship Lines (Dollar) entered into a contract with the United States Maritime Commission.
- Under the contract, Dollar delivered their common stock, endorsed in blank, to the Commission in exchange for financial assistance, including a subsidy and loans.
- By 1943, the company, renamed American President Lines, Ltd., had fully repaid all of its debts to the United States government.
- After the debts were paid, Dollar demanded that the Commission members return their stock, asserting the stock was only a pledge serving as collateral for the loans.
- The members of the Commission refused to return the shares, contending that the 1938 contract was an outright transfer of ownership to the United States, not a pledge.
Procedural Posture:
- The Dollar stockholders (respondents) sued the members of the Maritime Commission (petitioners) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the stock and a court order for its return.
- After the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, the District Court dismissed the complaint on its own motion with prejudice.
- The District Court held that the lawsuit was in effect a suit against the United States and was therefore barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
- The Dollar stockholders appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision.
- The members of the Maritime Commission successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevent a federal court from hearing a lawsuit against government officials to compel the return of specific property, where the plaintiffs allege the officials are holding the property in excess of their authority, and the officials claim they hold it on behalf of the United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
No. The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not prevent a federal court from hearing the lawsuit because when jurisdiction depends on whether an officer acted within their authority, the court must decide the merits of that question. If the officials are, as alleged, wrongfully withholding property by exceeding their statutory powers, the suit is against them as individuals, not against the United States. Citing United States v. Lee, the Court reasoned that an officer who acts beyond his authority is answerable for his actions and can be considered a tort-feasor. This suit is a possessory action to reclaim what is wrongfully withheld, not a suit to collect a debt from the treasury or compel performance of a contract with the U.S. Therefore, the District Court has jurisdiction to determine the merits of the contract dispute to decide whether the officials are acting unlawfully.
Concurring - Justice Reed
No. While the case should proceed, the majority's reasoning is flawed. This suit is properly viewed as one against the U.S. Maritime Commission as an entity, not against the individual members, because the Commission itself holds title and possession of the stock. Therefore, the Commission is an indispensable party to the suit. The case should be remanded for the District Court to determine whether the Commission itself can be sued (i.e., whether Congress has waived its immunity), rather than proceeding under the fiction that the suit is only against the individual officers who happen to be its members.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'officer suit' or ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity, which allows individuals to sue government officials for acting beyond their legal authority. It establishes the critical procedural point that when a court's jurisdiction hinges on the legality of an official's conduct, the court must proceed to the merits to resolve the jurisdictional question. This prevents government officials from automatically defeating lawsuits simply by asserting that they are acting on behalf of the sovereign, thereby ensuring a judicial forum for citizens whose property is allegedly being held unlawfully by the government.
Unlock the full brief for Land, Chairman, United States Maritime Commission, et al. v. Dollar et al.