United States v. Archibald McNeil & Sons Co.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Seeking to recover $17,422.32 as compensation for 3,840.9 tons of bituminous coal, defendant in error, a *305 Connecticut corporation, instituted this action against the United States by filing statement of claim in the United. States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

It alleged—

That jurisdiction of the action arises under the Fifth Amendment and the tenth section of the Lever Act, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276, 279.

That the-coal in question had been shipped from, the mines under valid contracts during the first part of October, 1919, was owned by the claimant, and prior to October 30, 1919, was at Port Richmond Piers, Philadelphia, or at Port Reading Piers, New Jersey.

That “by virtue of the authority conferred by the aforesaid Act of Congress, the President of the United States, acting by and through the Fuel Administrator at Port Richmond Piers, Philadelphia, or at Port Reading Piers, New Jersey, commandeered and requisitioned ” this coal during November and December, 1919. “ The said coal was commandeered and requisitioned from or through the Commissioner of the Tidewater Coal Exchange, the Superintendent of Transportation of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, the .Shipping and Freight Agent of the, United States Railroad Administration ,at Port Reading Terminal Piers, New Jersey, the Bituminous Coal Distribution Committee, the Regional Coal Committee, the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, the Port Reading Railroad Company, the Federal Treasurer at Port Reading Terminal Piers of the United States Railroad Administration, and the Jamison Coal & Coke Company, the vendors of thé said coal to.the plaintiff. All of the aforesaid coal was received, accepted, retained and used by the United States of America, and used in the operation of various railroads, to wit: Boston & Maine Railroad, Maine Central Railroad; which said use was a. public use connected with the common defense.” •

That the fair and reasonable value of the coal was $4.536 per ton f. o. b. the mines; that nothing has beeh *306 paid to' claimant on account of said coal so commandeered and requisitioned, and it should have judgment for the value thereof with interest.

A motion by the United States to dismiss the action úfton the-ground that the claimant was a citizen of Connecticut and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction, was overruled. Thereupon, the United States interposed' a demurrer and set up that the court had no jurisdiction of the cause; that the statement of claim showed no cause of action; that under the Lever Act district courts of the United States have jurisdiction of actions only after determination by the President of the value of the property taken, expression of dissatisfaction by. the owner, and payment of seventy-five per centum of the determined amount; that the complaint sets forth a diversion of coal under § 25 of the Lever Act, not a requisition under § 16, and that the remedy, if any, was to sue the Agent designated by the President under § 2(36 (a) of the Transportation Act, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456, 461. This was overruled. and the United States answered.

It was stipulated by counsel that, “ a jury trial being. waived, the issues of fact in. this case may be tried and determined by the court without the intervention of' a •jury, in accordance with §§ 649. and 700 of- the United States Revised Statutes.” The 'cause was heard by the court upon the pleadings and evidence. What purports to be a transcript of the latter is printed; but it was not made part of the record by biH of exceptions. The" trial judge filed an opinion and entered judgment fpr the claimant.' No special findings were asked or made.

The cause is here by direct writ of error. The’partiés agree that only the question of jurisdiction is open. ’ For the United States it is said, “ the court, below was without jurisdiction to render the judgment, and that is the sole question presented.” -

*307 As the record contains no bill of exceptions, upon this direct writ of error we can review only questions of law apparent on the face of the pleadings in so far as they directly relate to the court’s jurisdiction. Insurance Company v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; Law v. United States, 266 U. S. 494; Judicial Code, § 238.

Jurisdiction wafe invoked under the Lever Act." Thn claim is for something alleged to have been commandeered or requisitioned by the President, as provided by § 10, and this section confers jurisdiction without qualification upon district courts to hear and determine controversies directly resulting from such action. Houston Coal Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 361, 365. Proceedings fix the district where the seizure actually occurred are not forbidden, and seem entirely appropriate.

The allegations of the complaint were sufficient to set out a substantial claim under a federal statute. Accordingly, there-was jurisdiction in the court to pass upon the questions so presented. Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, 263 U. S. 291, 305.

Affirmed.