UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

1. In an action by the United States under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, a landlord may be ordered under § 206(b) to make restitution of overceiling rentals, even though a prohibitory injunction be not required because the defense rental area was decontrolled after the violations but before suit was brought. Pp. 340 U. S. 617-620.

(a) An order for restitution in this action was permissible under the "other order" provision of § 206(b). Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395. Pp. 340 U. S. 619-620.

2. The termination of rent control in the defense rental area did not end the legal effect of §§ 205 and 206 (under which this action was brought), in view of the provision of § 204(f) for the survival of rights and liabilities incurred prior to the expiration of the Act on either the date specified by Congress in the Act or such date as the President or Congress might later determine. Pp. 340 U. S. 620-621.

3. The trial of this proceeding as an action for equitable relief did not deny respondents their constitutional right to a jury trial, because no demand for a jury trial as made as required by Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, so far as the record shows, any right to a jury trial was waived. P. 340 U. S. 621.

182 F.2d 332 reversed.

The case is stated in the opinion, pp. 340 U. S. 617-618. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, p. 340 U. S. 621. clubjuris

Page 340 U. S. 617