Dollar

The United States brought suit in the court below to quiet title to certain shares of stock. The Dollar defendants moved for a dismissal, for judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment. Treating the motion solely as one for summary judgment, the court granted it and entered judgment to the effect that title to the shares resides in the Dollar Steamship Line and certain other named defendants. D.C., 100 F.Supp. 881 . The United States appeals.

In an earlier suit involving the same shares brought by the Dollar interests against the members of the United States Maritime Commission in the District Court of the District of Columbia Circuit, judgment initially went against the plaintiffs, it being found and determined that the shares had been acquiréd by the Commission outright, not as a pledge as claimed by the plaintiffs. Dollar v. Land, D.C., 82 F.Supp. 919 . On appeal the Court of Appeals of the District reached an opposite conclusion and reversed. Dollar v. Land, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 214 , 184 F.2d 245 .

In ruling on the motion for summary judgment in the present action the trial court appears to have considered the record in the District of Columbia suit for the purpose only…

I concur. But I wish to add some observations as to my own views in the matter.

The trial court’s conclusion as to the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel is based upon the fact that the individuals who were defendants in Dollar v. Land were represented by the Government attorneys, who took over the defense and controlled the case. The propriety of the application of that rule in cases involving private persons, and where no question of sovereign immunity arises, must be conceded. Souffront v. Compagnie Des Sucreries, 217 U.S. 475 , 30 S.Ct. 608 , 54 L.Ed. 846 . The court thought that logic and reason required the application of the same rule here, so as to require a holding that the United States was bound by the former judgment.

I am not satisfied that our citation of Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 , 67 S.Ct. 1009 , 91 L.Ed. 1209 ; and Land v. Dollar, 341 U.S. 737 , 71 S.Ct. 987 , 95 L.Ed. 1331 , is a complete answer to the trial court’s reasoning. When the first of those opinions was written the only issue was whether the suit was actually one against the United States, and' hence whether the suit was maintainable at all. The acts upon which the trial court based…

196 F.2d 551 UNITED STATES v. DOLLAR et al. No. 13130. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 13, 1952. Holmes Baldridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward H. Hickey, Donald B. MacGuineas, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Philip H. Angell, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for appellant. Herman Phleger, Gregory A. Harrison, Moses Lasky and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees R. Stanley Dollar, Dollar Steamship Line, Robert Dollar Co. and H. M. Lorber. Warner W. Gardner, Washington, D. C., Edward G. Chandler, San Francisco, Cal., amici curiæ, Ralph K. Davies et al. Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and POPE, Circuit Judges. HEALY, Circuit Judge. 1 The United States brought suit in the court below to quiet title to certain shares of stock. The Dollar defendants moved for a dismissal, for judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment. Treating the motion solely as one for summary judgment, the court granted it and entered judgment to the effect that title to the shares resides in the Dollar Steamship Line and certain other named defendants. D.C., 100 F.Supp. 881 . The United States appeals. 2 In an earlier suit involving the same…