Price controls had been lifted on the commodities involved in the present actions prior to the promulgation of Executive Orders Nos. 9841 and 9842.Hal-Mar Dress Co. v. Clark, 165 F.2d 222, and cases cited note 5, supra. The substitution of the United States in these cases therefore was proper unless, as the Court of Appeals thought, the President lacked power to authorize it. The view below was that ยง 205(e) of the Price Control Act permitted enforcement suits to be brought only in the name of the Price Administrator, or, when the bulk of his duties were transferred to the Secretary of Commerce, in the name of the latter.
We note that this suit was brought against the Director of the Division of Liqidation of the Department of Commerce, the Temporary Controls Administrator's office having been terminated on June 1, 1947, after the determination here complained of but before the institution of this suit. In Hal-Mar Dress Co. v. Clark, 165 F.2d 222 decided to day, we hold that the Attorney General and not the Director of the Division of Liquidation succeeded to the Administrator's functions under the last paragraph of Section 205(e). However, the Attorney General appeared in this case as counsel for the Director and under the circumstances we do not think it necessary that he should be formally joined as a party respondent.