判例译析 | 美国证券交易委员会诉W. J. Howey公司和Howey-in-the-Hills服务公司

译者｜候宇晴 湖南大学本科

审稿｜左亦惟 中南财经政法大学法本

         晏世伟 PKU LL.B

编辑｜陈宣颖 西南政法大学本科

责编｜陈远航 美国西北大学LL.M.

SEC 

v. 

W. J. Howey Co.

美国证券交易委员会

诉

W. J. Howey 公司和 Howey-in-the-Hills服务公司

Supreme Court of the United States

美国最高法院

May 2, 1946, Argued ; May 27, 1946, Decided No. 843

1946年5月2日开庭；1946年5月27日作出第843号判决

原文链接：https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep328/usrep328293/usrep328293.pdf

SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (lexis.com)

Prior History:

裁判历史：

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

第五巡回法院上诉巡回法庭复审令

The Securities & Exchange Commission sued in the District Court to enjoin respondents from using the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in the offer and sale of unregistered and non-exempt securities in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. 

美国证券交易委员会在地区法院提起诉讼，请求法院禁止被申请方利用州际贸易的邮件和工具，发行和销售未注册和非豁免证券，这违反了1933年证券法。

The District Court denied the injunction. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  This Court granted certiorari. Disposition: reversed. 

地区法院驳回了该禁制令请求。上诉巡回法庭维持原判。上诉巡回法庭批准复审请求。第五巡回法院上诉巡回法庭推翻原判。最终处理：推翻原判。

Ⅰ Core Terms

Ⅰ 关键词

investment contract, enterprise, purchasers, groves, profits, citrus, Securities Act, service contract, investors, cultivation, contracts, offering, acre, land sale contract, courts, deeds 

投资合同，企业，购买者，果园，利润，柑橘，证券法，服务合同，投资者，种植，合同，发行，英亩，土地买卖合同，法院，契约

Ⅱ Case Summary

Ⅱ 案情概要

A. Procedural Posture 

A.审理程序

Petitioner Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought certiorari review of a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's denial of the SEC's request for an injunction against respondents for alleged violations of Securities Act of 1933. At issue was whether certain transactions constituted "investment contracts" within the meaning of the Act. 

原告（上诉人）美国证券交易委员会（Securities and Exchange Commission，简称SEC）请求对美国第五巡回上诉法庭的一项判决进行调卷复审，该判决维持了地区法院拒绝SEC对被告（被上诉人）涉嫌违反1933年证券法的行为发出禁令的请求的原判决。案件争议焦点是某些交易是否构成证券法意义上的“投资合同”。

B. Overview  

B.概述

In its petition for certiorari review, the SEC challenged the denial of its request for an injunction in the SEC's action alleging violations of § 5(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The Court reviewed the record, which indicated that respondents, two corporations under direct common control and management, had engaged in transactions which constituted investment contracts within the meaning of the Act. An investment contract, for purposes of the Act, meant a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invested his money in a common enterprise and was led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party. It was immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise were evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise. In the case before the Court, all the elements of a profit-seeking business venture were present. Investors provided the capital and shared in the earnings and profits; respondents managed, controlled, and operated the enterprise. Because respondents failed to abide by the statutory and administrative rules in making their offerings, they violated the Act. 

在申请调卷复审时，SEC对地区法院拒绝其颁布禁制令请求的行为提出质疑。该请求中，SEC指控被告违反了1933年证券法第5(a)条的内容。上诉法庭审查了案卷记录，案卷显示被告是两家受直接共同控制和管理的公司，他们进行的交易构成了证券法意义上的投资合同。就证券法的立法目的而言，投资合同，指一种合同、交易或计划，即一个人将其资金投资于共同企业（common enterprise），并期望利润完全来自发起人或第三方的努力。至于企业的股份是以正式凭证证明，还是以企业所使用的实物资产的名义利息（nominal interest）证明，这并不重要。在该案件中，一项寻求盈利的商业投资的所有要素都存在。投资者提供资本，分享收益和利润；被告管理、控制和经营企业。由于被告在发行和销售证券时没有遵守法律和行政法规，他们违反了证券法。

C. Outcome 

C.判决结果

The Court reversed a judgment affirming dismissal of petitioner's action, brought to restrain respondents from the offer and sale of unregistered and non-exempt securities, in violation of federal securities laws. The transactions complained of were "investment contracts" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, even though they were not evidenced by formal certificates. 

上诉法庭推翻了确认驳回原告诉讼请求的判决，（前诉判决）旨在限制被告违反联邦证券法发行和销售未注册和非豁免证券。尽管没有正式的证明，但被诉交易应属于1933年证券法意义上的“投资合同”。

Ⅲ Syllabus

Ⅲ 裁判要点

1. Upon the facts of this case, an offering of units of a citrus grove development coupled with a contract for cultivating, marketing and remitting the net proceeds to the investor, was an offering of an "investment contract" within the meaning of that term as used in the provision of § 2 (1) of the Securities Act of 1933 defining "security" as including any "investment contract," and was therefore subject to the registration requirements of the Act.

1.根据本案的事实，对柑橘园开发项目的投资，以及一个种植、销售和向投资者汇出净收入的合同，属于“投资合同”（investment contract）。根据1933年证券法第2（1）条规定，“证券”包括任何“投资合同”。因此，本案中的“投资合同”受到该法案对于注册要求的约束。

2. For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract (undefined by the Act) means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise. 

2.就证券法而言，投资合同（证券法未作定义）投资合同，指一种合同、交易或计划，即一个人将其资金投资于共同企业，并期望利润完全来自发起人或第三方的努力。至于企业的股份是以正式凭证证明，还是以企业所使用的实物资产的名义利息证明，这并不重要。

3. The fact that some purchasers, by declining to enter into the service contract, chose not to accept the offer of the investment contract in its entirety, does not require a different result, since the Securities Act prohibits the offer as well as the sale of unregistered, nonexempt securities. 

3.一些投资者通过拒绝签订服务合同，选择不接受投资合同的全部要约，针对这一事实无需作出不同的判决，因为证券法禁止发行和销售未注册的、非豁免的证券。

4. The test of whether there is an "investment contract" under the Securities Act is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others; and, if that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value. 

4.检验证券法下是否存在“投资合同”的标准是：该计划是否涉及对共同企业的投资、其利润是否完全来自他人的努力；并且，如果符合上述标准，企业是投机的还是非投机的，或者是否出售具有或不具有内在价值的财产，都无关紧要。

. 

5. The policy of the Securities Act of affording broad protection to investors is not to be thwarted by unrealistic and irrelevant formulae. 

5.证券法为投资者提供广泛保护的政策不应被不切实际和不相关的规则阻碍。

Ⅳ Opinion

Ⅳ 本院意见

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court. 

墨菲法官（MR. JUSTICE MURPHY）宣读了本院意见。

[1] This case involves the application of § 2 (1) of the Securities Act of 1933 1 to an offering of units of a citrus grove development coupled with a contract for cultivating, marketing and remitting the net proceeds to the investor. 

[1] 本案援引1933年证券法第2（1）条，适用于本案对对柑橘园开发项目的投资，以及种植、销售和向投资者汇出净收入的合同，

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this action to restrain the respondents from using the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in the offer and sale of unregistered and non-exempt securities in violation of § 5 (a) of the Act. The District Court denied the injunction, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. We granted certiorari on a petition alleging that the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals conflicted with other federal and state decisions and that it introduced a novel and unwarranted test under the statute which the Commission regarded as administratively impractical. 

美国证券交易委员会采取这一行动是为了限制被告违反证券法第5（a）条的规定，利用州际商业的邮件和工具，发行和销售未注册和非豁免的证券的行为。地区法院驳回了这一禁令请求。第五巡回上诉法院维持了该判决。本院批准原告的复审请求，该请求声称巡回上诉法院的判决与其他联邦和州的判决相冲突，并且在法规下引入了一种新的、没有根据的标准。证券交易委员会认为，这种标准在行政方面是不切实际的。

Most of the facts are stipulated. The respondents, W. J. Howey Company and Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., are Florida corporations under direct common control and management. The Howey Company owns large tracts of citrus acreage in Lake County, Florida. During the past several years it has planted about 500 acres annually, keeping half of the groves itself and offering the other half to the public "to help us finance additional development." Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., is a service company engaged in cultivating and developing many of these groves, including the harvesting and marketing of the crops. 

大多数的事实都被法院确认。被告W. J. Howey公司（W. J. Howey Company）和Howey-in- hills服务公司（Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc.）位于佛罗里达州，受直接共同控制和管理。W. J. Howey公司在佛罗里达州莱克县拥有大片柑橘种植区。在过去的几年里，该公司每年种植约500英亩的树木，其中，保留一半给自己，将另一半提供给公众“以帮助我们筹集更多的开发资金”。Howey-in-the-Hills 服务有限公司从事培育和开发这些果园、收获并销售作物的业务。

Each prospective customer is offered both a land sales contract and a service contract, after having been told that it is not feasible to invest in a grove unless service arrangements are made. While the purchaser is free to make arrangements with other service companies, the superiority of Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., is stressed. Indeed, 85% of the acreage sold during the 3-year period ending May 31, 1943, was covered by service contracts with Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc.

在得到一份土地销售合同和一份服务合同之前，（W. J. Howey公司的）每个潜在客户都被告知，如果不做好服务安排，他们就不可能投资果园。尽管购买者可以自由地与其他服务公司达成协议，但是Howey-in-the-Hills服务公司的优越性十分突出。事实上，截至1943年5月31日的三年时间，（W. J. Howey公司）85%的土地都是通过Howey -in- Hills服务公司的服务合同出售的。

The land sales contract with the Howey Company provides for a uniform purchase price per acre or fraction thereof, varying in amount only in accordance with the number of years the particular plot has been planted with citrus trees. Upon full payment of the purchase price the land is conveyed to the purchaser by warranty deed. Purchases are usually made in narrow strips of land arranged so that an acre consists of a row of 48 trees. During the period between February 1, 1941, and May 31, 1943, 31 of the 42 persons making purchases bought less than 5 acres each. The average holding of these 31 persons was 1.33 acres and sales of as little as 0.65, 0.7 and 0.73 of an acre were made. These tracts are not separately fenced and the sole indication of several ownership is found in small land marks intelligible only through a plat book record. 

与Howey公司签订的土地销售合同规定了每英亩或其部分的统一购买价格，金额只根据特定土地种植柑橘树的年数而变化。在全额支付购买价款后，土地通过担保地契（warrantly deed）转让给购买者。购买的土地通常是狭窄的条状土地，每英亩由一排48棵树组成。1941年2月1日至1943年5月31日期间，42名购买者中有31人购买了少于5英亩的土地。这31个人的平均持有量为1.33英亩，而平均销售额分别为0.65英亩、0.7英亩和0.73英亩。这些土地没有单独的围栏，只有通过土地簿记录才能在小小的土地标记中找到几个所有权的专有标识。

The service contract, generally of a 10-year duration without option of cancellation, gives Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., a leasehold interest and "full and complete" possession of the acreage. For a specified fee plus the cost of labor and materials, the company is given full discretion and authority over the cultivation of the groves and the harvest and marketing of the crops. The company is well established in the citrus business and maintains a large force of skilled personnel and a great deal of equipment, including 75 tractors, sprayer wagons, fertilizer trucks and the like. Without the consent of the company, the land owner or purchaser has no right of entry to market the crop; thus there is ordinarily no right to specific fruit. The company is accountable only for an allocation of the net profits based upon a check made at the time of picking. All the produce is pooled by the respondent companies, which do business under their own names. 

该服务合同的期限一般为十年，不可撤销，合同赋予了Howey-in-the-Hills服务公司对土地的租赁权，和“完全”（full and complete）占有该区域的权利。只要支付一定的费用以及人工和材料的成本，公司就对农作物的种植、收获和销售享有完全的自由裁量权和管理权限。该公司在柑橘业务方面已经建立了良好的基础，拥有大量技术人员和设备，包括75辆拖拉机、喷雾车、化肥车等。未经公司同意，土地所有人、买受人无权进入（entry）作物市场，因此，（土地所有人、买受人）对所种植的具体的果实并不享有直接权益（仅享有抽象的收益权）。公司只负责依据在采摘时开出的支票分配净利润。所有的产品都是由被告公司以自己的名义汇集在一起的。

The purchasers for the most part are nonresidents of Florida. They are predominantly business and professional people who lack the knowledge, skill and equipment necessary for the care and cultivation of citrus trees. They are attracted by the expectation of substantial profits. It was represented, for example, that profits during the 1943-1944 season amounted to 20% and that even greater profits might be expected during the 1944-1945 season, although only a 10% annual return was to be expected over a 10-year period. Many of these purchasers are patrons of a resort hotel owned and operated by the Howey Company in a scenic section adjacent to the groves. The hotel's advertising mentions the fine groves in the vicinity and the attention of the patrons is drawn to the groves as they are being escorted about the surrounding countryside. They are told that the groves are for sale; if they indicate 

an interest in the matter they are then given a sales talk. 

大部分购买者都不是佛罗里达州居民。他们主要是商人和专业人士，缺乏养护和种植柑橘树所需的知识、技能和设备。他们被预期的巨额利润所吸引。例如，尽管10年间的年回报率只有10%，但1943-1944年柑橘上市期利润高达20%，而1944-1945年上市期的利润甚至可能更高。这些购买者中有许多是Howey公司拥有并经营的一家度假酒店的顾客，该酒店位于靠近树林的风景区。酒店的广告提到了附近美丽的小树林，当顾客在周围乡村游玩时，他们的注意力就会被小树林吸引。他们会被告知，这些小树林正在出售；如果顾客对这件事表露兴趣，公司职员就会向他们推销树林。

It is admitted that the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used in the sale of the land and service contracts and that no registration statement or letter of notification has ever been filed with the Commission in accordance with the Securities Act of 1933 and the rules and regulations thereunder. 

法院已查明，（被告）在（签订和履行）土地销售和服务合同的过程中使用了州际商业的邮件和工具，而且从未根据1933年证券法及其规章向美国证券交易委员会提交过任何登记声明或通知函。

Section 2 (1) of the Act defines the term "security" to include the commonly known documents traded for speculation or investment. This definition also includes "securities" of a more variable character, designated by such descriptive terms as "certificate of interest or participation in any profitsharing agreement," "investment contract" and "in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security.'" The legal issue in this case turns upon a determination of whether, under the circumstances, the land sales contract, the warranty deed and the service contract together constitute an "investment contract" within the meaning of § 2 (1). An affirmative answer brings into operation the registration requirements of § 5 (a), unless the security is granted an exemption under § 3 (b). The lower courts, in reaching a negative answer to this problem, treated the contracts and deeds as separate transactions involving no more than an ordinary real estate sale and an agreement by the seller to manage the property for the buyer. 

证券法第2（1）条对“证券”一词的定义包括为投机或投资而交易的公开单据。本定义还包括性质更为多变的“证券”，用诸如“权益凭证或参与任何分红协议”、“投资合同”和“一般来说，通常称为‘证券’的任何利息或单据”等描述性术语加以定义。本案中的法律问题主要在于：这种情况下，土地销售合同、担保地契和服务合同是否共同构成证券法第2(1)条意义下的“投资合同”。对此，本院持肯定意见。证券法第5（a）条关于登记的要求应当适用于此，除非该证券依据证券法第3（b）条的规定被豁免。下级法院在对该法律问题作出否定意见时，将（土地销售和服务）合同和担保地契视为独立的交易，且不涉及普通的房地产销售以及卖方为买方管理财产的协议。

The term "investment contract" is undefined by the Securities Act or by relevant legislative reports. But the term was common in many state "blue sky" laws in existence prior to the adoption of the federal statute and, although the term was also undefined by the state laws, it had been broadly construed by state courts so as to afford the investing public a full measure of protection. Form was disregarded for substance and emphasis was placed upon economic reality. An investment contract thus came to mean a contract or scheme for "the placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment."This definition was uniformly applied by state courts to a variety of situations where individuals were led to invest money in a common enterprise with the expectation that they would earn a profit solely through the efforts of the promoter or of some one other than themselves. 

“投资合同”一词在证券法或相关立法报告中未作明确定义。但是，在联邦法规通过之前，这个术语常见于许多州现有的“蓝天”法律（“blue sky” laws）。尽管州法律也没有定义这个术语，但对它进行了广泛解释，以便为投资者提供全面的保护。（立法者）为了实质而忽略了（“投资合同”这一）形式，把重点放在了经济现实上。因此，投资合同的意思是一种“以一种旨在确保从其使用中获得收入或利润的方式配置资本或资金”的合同或计划。这一定义被州法院援引适用于各种情况。在这些情况下，个人被引导向一个共同企业投资，期望他们只通过发起人或第三人的努力就能够获得利润。

[2]By including an investment contract within the scope of § 2 (1) of the Securities Act, 

Congress was using a term the meaning of which had been crystallized by this prior judicial interpretation. It is therefore reasonable to attach that meaning to the term as used by Congress, especially since such a definition is consistent with the statutory aims. In other words, an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise. Such a definition necessarily underlies this Court's decision in S. E. C. v. Joiner Corp., 320 U.S. 344, and has been enunciated and applied many times by lower federal courts. It permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of "the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security." It embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits. 

[2]通过将投资合同纳入证券法第2（1）条的范围内，国会使用的术语的含义已在先前的司法解释中得以明确。因此，给国会所使用的术语加上这一含义是合理的，特别是因为这样的定义与立法目的相一致。换言之，根据证券法的目的，投资合同是指一种合同、交易或计划，在这种合同、交易或计划中，即一个人将其资金投资于共同企业，并期望利润完全来自发起人或第三方的努力。至于企业的股份是以正式凭证证明，还是以企业所使用的实物资产的名义利息证明，这并不重要。这样的定义必然是本院在S. E. C. v. Joiner Corp.一案中作出的裁决的基础，下级联邦法院也多次阐明和应用这一定义。它使立法目的得以实现，即对发行“在我们的商业世界中属于普遍的证券概念的多种类型的工具”进行强制性的全面和公平披露。它体现了一种灵活而非静态的原则，一种能够适应一种能够适应那些为实现利润承诺而寻求使用他人金钱的人所设计的无数和多变的方案的原则。

The transactions in this case clearly involve investment contracts as so defined. The respondent companies are offering something more than fee simple interests in land, something different from a farm or orchard coupled with management services. They are offering an opportunity to contribute money and to share in the profits of a large citrus fruit enterprise managed and partly owned by respondents. They are offering this opportunity to persons who reside in distant localities and who lack the equipment and experience requisite to the cultivation, harvesting and marketing of the citrus products. Such persons have no desire to occupy the land or to develop it themselves; they are attracted solely by the prospects of a return on their investment. Indeed, individual development of the plots of land that are offered and sold would seldom be economically feasible due to their small size. Such tracts gain utility as citrus groves only when cultivated and developed as component parts of a larger area. A common enterprise managed by respondents or third parties with adequate personnel and equipment is therefore essential if the investors are to achieve their paramount aim of a return on their investments. Their respective shares in this enterprise are evidenced by land sales contracts and warranty deeds, which serve as a convenient method of determining the investors' allocable shares of the profits. The resulting transfer of rights in land is purely incidental. 

本案例的交易显然涉及此种定义下的投资合同。被告提供的不仅仅是土地绝对所有权（fee simple interests in land），这与农场或果园（土地销售）加上管理服务不同。他们提供了一个机会，使购买者能够投资，并分享由被告管理和部分拥有的大型柑橘水果企业带来的利润。他们向居住在偏远地区并缺乏种植、收获和销售柑橘产品所需的设备和经验的人提供这种机会。这些人无意占有或自己开发土地；吸引他们的仅仅是投资回报的前景。事实上，由于（被告）提供和出售的土地面积很小，对土地进行个别开发很难获得经济效益。只有在种植和开发活动成为更大区域的组成部分时，土地才能作为柑橘园获得经济效益。因此，如果投资者要实现其投资回报的首要目标，就必须有一个由被告或具有适当人员和设备的第三方管理的共同企业。他们在该企业中所占的份额以土地出让合同和担保地契来证明，这是确定投资者可分配利润份额的方便方法。由此产生的土地权利转让纯粹是偶然的。

Thus all the elements of a profit-seeking business venture are present here. The investors provide the capital and share in the earnings and profits; the promoters manage, control and operate the enterprise. It follows that the arrangements whereby the investors' interests are made manifest involve investment contracts, regardless of the legal terminology in which such contracts are clothed. The investment contracts in this instance take the form of land sales contracts, warranty deeds and service contracts which respondents offer to prospective investors. And respondents' failure to abide by the statutory and administrative rules in making such offerings, even though the failure result from a bona fide mistake as to the law, cannot be sanctioned under the Act. 

因此，（本案）存在满足一项寻求盈利的商业投资的所有要素。投资者提供资本，分享收益和利润；发起人管理、控制和经营企业。由此可见，（本案中）使投资者利益得以体现的安排涉及投资合同，无论这些合同采用何种法律术语（legal terminology）。在这种情况下，投资合同采取土地销售合同、担保地契和服务合同的形式，由被告提供给潜在投资者。被告在提供这类产品时未能遵守法律和行政法规，即使这是由于法律上的善意过失（bona fide mistake）造成的，也不能根据证券法予以认可。

This conclusion is unaffected by the fact that some purchasers choose not to accept the full offer of an investment contract by declining to enter into a service contract with the respondents. The Securities Act prohibits the offer as well as the sale of unregistered, non-exempt securities. Hence it is enough that the respondents merely offer the essential ingredients of an investment contract. 

这一结论不受以下事实的影响：一些购买者选择不接受投资合同的全部内容，拒绝与被告签订服务合同。证券法禁止出售未注册和非豁免的证券。因此，被告只需提供投资合同的基本要素就足够了。

[3]We reject the suggestion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 151 F.2d at 717, that an investment contract is necessarily missing where the enterprise is not speculative or promotional character and where the tangible interest which is sold has intrinsic value independent of the success of the enterprise as a whole.The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others. If that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value. The statutory policy of affording broad protection to investors is not to be thwarted by unrealistic and irrelevant formulae. 

[3] 我们拒绝巡回上诉法院的建议，即如果企业在性质上不是投机的或者具有证券推广性的，并且其出售的有形利益具有独立于企业整体成功的内在价值，则投资合同就必然不存在。对于投资合同的判断标准在于：该计划是否涉及对一个共同企业的投资，利润是否完全来自他人的努力。如果符合这一标准，那么企业是投机的还是非投机的，或者是否出售具有或不具有内在价值的财产都无关紧要。

Reversed.

本院推翻原判。

Ⅴ Dissent

Ⅴ 反对意见

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 

法兰克福法官（MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER）持反对意见。

"Investment contract" is not a term of art; it is a conception dependent upon the circumstances of a particular situation. If this case came before us on a finding authorized by Congress that the facts disclosed an "investment contract" within the general scope of § 2 (1) of the Securities Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission's finding would govern, unless, on the record, it was wholly unsupported. But that is not the case before us. Here the ascertainment of the existence of an "investment contract" had to be made independently by the District Court and it found against its existence. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sustained that finding. If respect is to be paid to the wise rule of judicial administration under which this Court does not upset concurrent findings of two lower courts in the ascertainment of facts and the relevant inferences to be drawn from them, this case clearly calls for its application. For the crucial issue in this case turns on whether the contracts for the land and the contracts for the management of the property were in reality separate agreements or merely parts of a single transaction. It is clear from its opinion that the District Court was warranted in its conclusion that the record does not establish the existence of an investment contract: 

“投资合同”不是一个专业术语；它是一个依赖于特定情况的概念。如果此案是根据国会授权的裁决提交给我们的，即案件事实披露的“投资合同”属于证券法第2（1）条规定的一般范围，那么证券交易委员会的裁决将适用于本案，除非有记录表明该裁决完全不受支持。但本案并非如此。本案中，必须由地区法院独立查明是否存在“投资合同”，而法院裁决它并不存在。第五巡回上诉法院维持了这一裁决。如果要尊重司法行政的明智原则（the wise rule of judicial administration），即本院不推翻两个下级法院根据查明事实和从中得出的有关推论同时作出的裁决，那么本案显然需要适用这一规则。因为本案的关键问题在于，土地合同和财产管理合同实际上是独立的协议或仅仅是单一交易的组成部分。地区法院的意见清楚表明，案卷记录不能证明投资合同的存在:

". . . the record in this case shows that not a single sale of citrus grove property was made by the Howey Company during the period involved in this suit, except to purchasers who actually inspected the property before purchasing the same. The record further discloses that no purchaser is required to engage the Service Company to care for his property and that of the fifty-one purchasers acquiring property during this period, only forty-two entered into contracts with the Service Company for the care of the property."  

“……本案的记录显示，在本案期间内，Howey公司（Howey Company）没有出售任何柑橘园土地，除了购买该土地之前实际检查过该土地的购买者。记录进一步显示，没有购买者必需聘请服务公司（Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc.）管理他们的土地，而在此期间取得土地的五十一名购买者中，只有四十二名与服务公司签订管理土地的合同。”

Simply because other arrangements may have the appearances of this transaction but are employed as an evasion of the Securities Act does not mean that the present contracts were evasive. I find nothing in the Securities Act to indicate that Congress meant to bring every innocent transaction within the scope of the Act simply because a perversion of them is covered by the Act. 

仅仅因为其他的安排可能具有（投资）这种交易的外观，但被用于规避证券法的约束，并不意味着当下的合同是（意在）规避证券法约束的。我在证券法中没有发现任何规定表明，国会有意将每一笔合法的交易纳入证券法的管辖范围，因为证券法涵盖了对这些交易的歪曲。

译者注：

【1】共同企业（common enterprise）指各个投资人与他们共同投资的项目之间都有类似的关系。具体来说，共同企业主要有三种：平行的共同关系（要求所有投资者之间有共同关系，通常按比例分配利润）、广义的共同关系（只要求每个投资者与项目发起者的努力之间有共同利益）、狭义的共同关系（要求投资者的收益、他人的努力均与最终的经营成果相结合）。

【2】担保地契（warrantly deed）也称“全权保证地契”，全权保证地契为买家提供最大程度的土地所有权保护。通过这种契约，卖家向买家（及其继承人）作出保证，保证卖家在出卖时享有该土地的所有权，且土地不存在任何权利瑕疵。

【3】一些投资者每年都会去他们的特定地块，提出有关养护和种植的建议，但这不属于任何法律规定的权利。

【4】“蓝天”法律（“blue sky” laws）：美国州级的反欺诈法规，要求证券发行人注册并披露其发行细节,为发行人规定了责任，允许法律当局和投资者对他们未能遵守法律规定的行为提起诉讼。

【5】State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Minn. 52, 56, 177 N. W. 937, 938

【6】State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95, 191 N. W. 425; Klatt v. Guaranteed Bond Co., 213 Wis. 12, 250 N. W. 825; State v. Heath, 199 N. C. 135, 153 S. E. 855; Prohaska v. HemmerMiller Development Co., 256 Ill. App. 331; People v. White, 124 Cal. App. 548, 12 P. 2d 1078; Stevens v. Liberty Packing 

Corp., 111 N. J. Eq. 61, 161 A. 193. See also Moore v. Stella, 52 Cal. App. 2d 766, 127 P. 2d 300. 

【7】S. E. C. v. Joiner Corp., 320 U.S. 344

【8】Atherton v. United States, 128 F.2d 463; Penfield Co. v. S. E. C., 143 F.2d 746; S. E. C. v. Universal Service Assn., 106 F.2d 232; S. E. C. v. Crude Oil Corp., 93 F.2d 844; S. E. C. v. Bailey, 41 F.Supp. 647; S. E. C. v. Payne, 35 F.Supp. 873; S. E. C. v. Bourbon Sales Corp., 47 F.Supp. 70; S. E. C. v. 

Wickham, 12 F.Supp. 245; S. E. C. v. Timetrust, Inc., 28F.Supp. 34; S. E. C. v. Pyne, 33 F.Supp. 988. 国会遵从了与其行政程序相一致的定义。

Fee simple指“（处置权不受限制的）土地绝对所有权”。