Bowles v. East St. Johns Shingle Co.

Ninth Circuit

Bowles v. East St. Johns Shingle Co.

152 F.2d 45

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 1945

DocketNo. 11016

StatusPublished

This text of 152 F.2d 45 (Bowles v. East St. Johns Shingle Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowles v. East St. Johns Shingle Co., 152 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

On June 26, 1944, an action was instituted against appellee under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e). Appellee answered, trial was had, and on December 19, 1944, judgment was entered dismissing the action. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The action was instituted in the name of ■appellant, as Price Administrator, by attorneys of the Office of Price Administration — Jerome S. Bischoff, Regional Enforcement Attorney, and Norman T. J. Mc-Caffery, District Enforcement Attorney. Appellee contended, and the trial court held, that Bischoff and McCaffery were not authorized to institute the action. We hold that they were so authorized by Revised General Order No. 3 (8 F.R. 8027) issued June 10, 1943, and that their acts were ratified by Second Revised General Order No. 3 (9 F.R. 11137) issued September 7, 1944. In so holding, we reaffirm Bowles v. Wheeler, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 34.

Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

On June 26, 1944, an action was instituted against appellee under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e). Appellee answered, trial was had, and on December 19, 1944, judgment was entered dismissing the action. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The action was instituted in the name of ■appellant, as Price Administrator, by attorneys of the Office of Price Administration — Jerome S. Bischoff, Regional Enforcement Attorney, and Norman T. J. Mc-Caffery, District Enforcement Attorney. Appellee contended, and the trial court held, that Bischoff and McCaffery were not authorized to institute the action. We hold that they were so authorized by Revised General Order No. 3 (8 F.R. 8027) issued June 10, 1943, and that their acts were ratified by Second Revised General Order No. 3 (9 F.R. 11137) issued September 7, 1944. In so holding, we reaffirm Bowles v. Wheeler, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 34.

Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F.2d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-east-st-johns-shingle-co-ca9-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack