Woods v. Brown. Woods v. Sanford

Good Law
184 F.2d 486·1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3116
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 28, 195012519_1California544 words

Opinion

Opinion

Healy, J.

■ These were suits by the Housing Expediter brought pursuant to § 206 of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 1881 et seq., for injunctive relief and restitution to tenants of rent overcharges. •

In No. 12,519 the district court found that from September 1947 through January 1949 the defendants, as landlord and agent in charge of certain controlled housing accommodations, collected and received . from certain tenants overcharges in the total amount of $250. A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants (appellees) from demanding or receiving rentals in excess of the maximum established for the premises. However, the Expediter’s prayer for an order of restitution was denied for the stated reason “that the granting of restitution would constitute imprisonment for debt.”

The denial of restitution on the ground stated can not be sustained. The record contains no intimation that appellees are either unable or unwilling to repay the amount of the overcharges if an order is made requiring them to do so. It will be time enough to raise the point of unconstitutional imprisonment for debt when that procedure is threatened or imminent.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.