Summary

Frank Murphy Porter v. Warner Holding Company…

Thus the Administrator invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court to enjoin acts and practices made illegal by the Act and to enforce compliance with the Act. Such a jurisdiction is an equitable one. Unless otherwise provided by statute, all the inherent equitable powers of the District Court are available for the proper and complete exercise of that jurisdiction. And since the public interest is involved in a proceeding of this nature, those equitable powers assume an even broader and more flexible character than when only a private controversy is at stake.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy Porter v. Warner Holding Company…

When the Administrator seeks restitution under § 205 (a) he does not request the court to award statutory damages to the purchaser or tenant or to pay to such person part of the penalties which go to the United States Treasury in a suit by the Administrator under § 205 (e) . Rather he asks the court to act in the public interest by restoring the status quo and ordering the return of that which rightfully belongs to the purchaser or tenant. Such action is within the recognized power and within the highest tradition of a court of equity.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy Porter v. Warner Holding Company…

An order for the recovery and restitution of illegal rents may be considered a proper 'other order' on either of two theories:
(1) It may be considered as an equitable adjunct to an injunction decree. Nothing is more clearly a part of the subject matter of a suit for an injunction than the recovery of that which has been illegally acquired and which has given rise to the necessity for injunctive relief. To be sure, such a recovery could not be obtained through an independent suit in equity if an adequate legal remedy were available.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature