Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928) (No. 181)
1928
Case name: Swift & Co. v. United States Opinion filed: 1928-03-19 Docket No.: 181 Citations: • 276 U.S. 311 • 48 S. Ct. 311 • 72 L. Ed. 587 • 1928 U.S. LEXIS 83 Case holding summaries: • “[E]ight reasons are relied on as showing that, in whole or in part, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” • “On a motion to vacate, the determination . . . that a case or controversy existed is not open to attack.” • jurisdictional objection to consent decree is “not open on a motion to vacate”; “[i]f [a court] erred in deciding that there was a case or controversy, the error is one which could have been corrected only” on direct review • holding that a party could seek appellate review of a consent judgment containing no reservations relevant to the issue sought to be appealed if that party lacked "actual consent" • " `[A] decree, which appears by the record to have been rendered by consent, is always affirmed, without considering the merits of the cause.'" • "Decrees entered by consent have been reviewed upon appeal ... where there was a claim of lack of actual consent to the decree as entered ...." • stating "if the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties ... even gross error in the decree would not render it void" • denying motion to vacate consent decree • federal court had jurisdiction to enjoin even intrastate commerce where (1) court issued injunction pursuant to parties' settlement of case and (2 • federal court had jurisdiction to enjoin even intrastate commerce where (1) court issued injunction pursuant to parties' settlement of case and (2) case was subject to court's jurisdiction because pleadings alleged antitrust conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce • failure to establish that violation actually occurred before entry of consent decree "does not go to the power of the court to adjudicate between the parties" • "[A]n injunction may issue to prevent future wrong, although no right has yet been violated."
