Collins v. Porter

Background

Petitioners were stockholders in a distilling corporation that, on dissolution in December 1942, received warehouse receipts for bulk whiskey as their share of the assets. In January 1943 they sold those receipts for more than the Administrator’s Maximum Price Regulation 193 allowed, believing the receipts were exempt as “securities.” The Administrator sued for treble damages under the Emergency Price Control Act, seeking about $6,800,000. Petitioners filed a formal protest asking the Administrator to declare the regulation invalid or inapplicable; the Administrator dismissed the protest and the Emergency Court later dismissed the petitioners’ complaint, prompting review by this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether these former shareholders could use the statutory protest procedure and, if denied, obtain review in the Emergency Court to challenge the price regulation. Relying on the Court’s decision in Utah Junk Co. v. Porter decided the same day, the Court held that the protest route created by §203(a) remains available and that the later-added §204(e) did not repeal or limit it. The Court rejected the Administrator’s claim that the sellers were not persons “subject to” the regulation, noting their continuing exposure to a large treble-damage claim, and concluded the Emergency Court should have considered their protest.

Real world impact

The ruling preserves a clear statutory path for people facing enforcement under wartime price rules to ask the Administrator to rule on a regulation and then seek review in the Emergency Court. It reverses the dismissal and sends the controversy back for proper consideration, while the pending treble-damage enforcement suit remains active and could still determine liability on the merits.