Opinion of the Court. 325 U.S. fendants in a suit brought by the United States to restrain alleged violations of the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act. Mr. Wm. Dwight Whitney, with whom Mr. Robert T. Swaine was on the brief, for petitioners in No. 1189. Mr. John M. Harlan, with whom Mr. John E. F. Wood was on the brief, for petitioners in No. 1190. Mr. Herbert A. Berman, with whom Assistant Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Berge and Mr. Edward S. Stimson were on the brief, for the United States. MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases come before the court on petitions for certiorari presented pursuant to § 262 of the Judicial Code. Each petition is by several of the defendants in a single suit pending in the District Court. 1 Two matters are presented: the propriety of review of the action below by certiorari, and the alleged excess of jurisdiction by the court below in making the order of which the petitioners complain. An understanding of the issues requires a statement of the nature of the suit and of the order made. The United States filed a complaint in the District Court against the three petitioners in No. 1189, which are corporations organized under the laws of South Africa; the petitioners in No. 1190, which are respectively corporations organized under the laws of the Belgian Congo and under the laws of Portugal; and four other corporations, one organized under the laws of Belgium, one under the laws of the Belgian Congo, and two under the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 1 28 U. S. C. § 377. 212 Opinion of the Court. Ireland, and seven individuals respectively characterized as stockholder, or stockholder and director, or stockholder and employee, or managing agent, or managing director of one or more of the corporations. The complaint sought equitable relief based upon a charge that the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the commerce of the United States with foreign nations in gem and industrial diamonds, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act 2 and § 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act.3 The complaint alleged that all of the corporate defendants were doing business within the United States. With the complaint the United States filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in which it prayed that all of the corporate defendants be restrained from withdrawing from the country any property located in the United States, and from selling, transferring or disposing of any property in the United States "until such time as this Court shall have determined the issues of this case and defendant corporations shall have complied with its orders." The reason given in support of the motion was: "The injury to the United States of America from the withdrawal of said deposits, diamonds or other property would be irreparable because sequestration of said property is the only means of enforcing this Court's orders or decree against said foreign corporate defendants. The principal business of said defendants is carried on in foreign countries and they could quickly withdraw their assets from the United States and so prevent enforcement of any order or decree which this Court may render." Amongst other supporting papers was an affidavit by counsel for the United States which stated that "the investigation which he has made shows the foreign corporate defendants named herein have endeavored to avoid sub 2 26 Stat. 209 as amended 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2. 28 Stat. 570 as amended 15 U. S. C. § 8. 66481846-18 Opinion of the Court. 325 U.S. jecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States by making their sales abroad only and requiring customers to pay in advance for all purchases." There was also a motion for a restraining order without notice. The requested restraining order was issued and served on a number of banks; one, a bank in which De Beers had, the same day, established a credit of $59,320; others in which Forestiere had credits of approximately $632,000. Bank credits of petitioner Diamantes affected aggregate approximately $47,000. Both the two last named petitioners had purchased machinery and supplies in the United States of an approximate value of $100,000, which were covered by the injunction. Upon a showing that as the corporate defendants were foreign corporations and would be required to obtain information and affidavits in support of their contention that service of process in the suit had not been made upon them, and in support of other motions addressed to failure to state a cause of action under the statutes, time to plead or answer was extended; and the injunction was from time to time modified and continued. Counsel for the petitioners, appearing specially, moved for dissolution of the injunction. The case was heard on affidavits and oral argument, the application was denied, and the injunction was continued in force. Thereupon the petitioners applied to this court for certiorari under § 262. That section provides in part: "The Supreme Court, the circuit courts of appeals, and the district courts shall have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." All the petitioners attack the order as in substance a sequestration of property beyond the power of the court and an abuse of discretion in the circumstances. The petitioners in No. 1189 also seek a reversal on the ground that the complaint does not state a claim cognizable by United States courts and that the affidavits filed by these peti 212 Opinion of the Court. tioners establish that the court below has no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. It is obvious from the record that these contentions are still open in the court below and that court has not yet passed upon them. In the view we take of the case it is unnecessary for us presently to consider them. In United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, ante, p. 196, the court has discussed the propriety of review under § 262 in a suit brought under the Anti-Trust laws where there is a substantial question whether the District Court has jurisdiction of a suit which it has retained for trial on the merits. What is there said applies in this instance. If the preliminary injunction here granted, unless set aside, will stand throughout the course of the trial and for an indefinite period after its termination, and if the order was beyond the powers conferred upon the court, it is plain, under the decisions mentioned, that the petitions present an appropriate case for the exercise of our jurisdiction under § 262. As hereafter noted the order in question was not made to grant interlocutory relief such as could be afforded by any final injunction, but is one respecting a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the case; no decision of the suit on the merits can redress any injury done by the order; and therefore unless it can be reviewed under § 262 it can never be corrected if beyond the power of the court below. When Congress withholds interlocutory reviews, § 262 can, of course, not be availed of to correct a mere error in the exercise of conceded judicial power. But when a court has no judicial power to do what it purports to do-when its action is not mere error but usurpation of power-the situation falls precisely within the allowable use of § 262. We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether the District Court is empowered to enter the order under attack. See In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443, 462; Maryland v. Soper, 270 U. S. 9, 30. Opinion of the Court. 325 U.S. Although the Government based its motion upon the theory that the entry of the requested injunction would amount to a sequestration of the defendants' assets, and so argued in the court below, it has abandoned that position, because Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure," which permits the issue of a writ of attachment or sequestration against the property of a disobedient party to compel satisfaction of a judgment, is operative only after a judgment is entered. The Government disclaims any benefit of Rule 64, which provides for an attachment at the commencement of, or during the course of, an action for the purpose of securing payment of any judgment ultimately obtained, under and in accordance with the law of the state in which the court sits or under any existing federal statute. It is admitted that there is no applicable federal statute and that, under the law of New York, an attachment may issue only in an action seeking a money judgment and will not issue in an equity suit such as the instant one." The court below deduced the power to grant the injunction from § 4 of the Sherman Act' and from § 262 of the Judicial Code, the section under which petitioners seek review in this court. The respondent seeks to sustain the injunction under the same statutory provisions. Section 4 of the Sherman Act confers jurisdiction on District Courts "to prevent and restrain violations of this act." That jurisdiction, as we have held, is to be exercised according to the general principles which govern 5 28 U. S. C. foll. § 723c. 8 N. Y. Civil Practice Act § 902; 7 Carmody, New York Practice, § 309; Thorington v. Merrick, 101 N. Y. 5, 3 N. E. 794; Brown v. Chaminade Velours, 176 Misc. 238, 26 N. Y. S. 2d 1009; Avery v. Avery, 119 App. Div. 698, 104 N. Y. S. 290. Compare Lazenby v. Codman, 28 F. Supp. 949; Shiel v. Patrick, 59 F. 992. 15 U. S. C. § 4. 8 Appalachian Coals v. United States, 288 U. S. 344, 377. |