Under the decision of this Court in these and other commodities
clause cases,
213 U. S. 213
U.S. 364, there was no error in the circuit court's dismissing the
bill absolutely, the government not having asked leave to amend,
the stipulation to submit on bill and answer not having been
withdrawn, and no violation of the law having been shown on the
admitted facts.
Under such circumstances, the decree must be affirmed whatever
may be its scope and effect as
res judicata in view of
stipulations made in the court below.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
These three cases were embraced in the commodities cases
previously before this Court, and, like the
Lehigh
Page 220 U. S. 276
Valley Railroad Company Case, No. 536,
ante,
p.
220 U. S. 257,
they are but sequels of the controversy pointed out in the opinion
in that case as having been formerly passed upon in the opinion
reported in 213 U.S.
213 U. S. 366.
These cases, however, differ from the
Lehigh Valley case
in this respect: upon the filing in the circuit court of the
mandate of this Court, the United States in each case, upon the
same record on which the reversed decree was based, without
offering to show any further facts, or withdrawing the stipulation
to submit the cause on bill and answer, referred to in the opinion
in the
Lehigh Valley case, moved that the decree to be
entered be "that the bill be dismissed without prejudice." This
motion was denied, whereupon the court was informed that the
government did not intend to proceed further with the cause, and in
each case a decree was entered dismissing the cause absolutely.
The error alleged is, in substance, that the circuit court erred
in each case in dismissing the bill of complaint absolutely. But
leave to amend was not asked, and as, upon the facts appearing and
admitted on each record, no violation of the commodities clause was
shown, the decree entered may properly be held to have been in
strict "conformity with the opinion of this Court." Whatever
therefore in view of the stipulation made below, may be the scope
and effect of the decree as
res judicata, we see no reason
for concluding that error was committed by the circuit court in
refusing to qualify its decree. The decree in each case is
therefore affirmed.