Land v. Dollar
United States Supreme Court
330 U.S. 731 (1947)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
During World War II, Dollar Steamship Lines (the company), a private company, encountered financial difficulties. R. Dollar and other shareholders (collectively, the shareholders) (plaintiffs) sought a loan from the United States Maritime Commission (commission). After some negotiations, the shareholders gave their stock to the commission, and the commission arranged a federal loan for the company. Five years later, the company had repaid the entire loan. The shareholders requested the return of their stock, believing the commission had held the stock as collateral. The commission refused, arguing that the shareholders had transferred full title to the stock, making the commission the owner. The shareholders sued Emory Land and other commission officials (defendants) in federal district court, seeking an order requiring return of the stock. The district court found that even though the lawsuit technically named commission officials as the only defendants, it was really an action against the United States. The court ruled the claims were barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed the lawsuit. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal, allowing the claims to proceed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)
Concurrence (Reed, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

