Bowles v. Good Luck Glove Co.

Seventh Circuit

Bowles v. Good Luck Glove Co.

143 F.2d 579

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1944

DocketNo. 8524

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 143 F.2d 579 (Bowles v. Good Luck Glove Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowles v. Good Luck Glove Co., 143 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.

The Administrator in this case charged appellee with the violation of the General Maximum Price Regulation promulgated pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. The complaint sought an injunction, both temporary and permanent, and a money judgment for three times the amount of the alleged overcharge. The defendant did not, nor does it now, attack the validity of the pertinent regulation, nor the Statute under which it was promulgated. However, it does contend that plaintiff’s theory of recovery is based upon a misinterpretation of the regulation and a misconception of the purposes of the Act.

On a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found the facts specially, rendered its conclusions of law thereon and entered judgment denying the motion. From that ruling this appeal is prosecuted. By agreement of the parties, further proceedings in the District Court were ordered stayed until final determination of this appeal. In its brief, defendant calls our attention to the fact that, subsequently to the notice of appeal, plaintiff excepted defendant’s work gloves from the operation of the General Maximum Price Regulation, and made them the subject of Regulation No. 506, in which the sale price for each model is specifically fixed. Therefore it urges that the court’s ruling denying a temporary injunction has become a moot question, under United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U. S. 113, 40 S.Ct. 448, 64 L.Ed. 808. Plaintiff neither denies nor affirms these facts but denies their effect to render the question here presented a moot one. There is nothing in the record from which we can determine whether or not the question is moot.

The District Court filed a written opinion (52 F.Supp. 942) with which we are in accord. The judgment is affirmed.

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

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.

The Administrator in this case charged appellee with the violation of the General Maximum Price Regulation promulgated pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. The complaint sought an injunction, both temporary and permanent, and a money judgment for three times the amount of the alleged overcharge. The defendant did not, nor does it now, attack the validity of the pertinent regulation, nor the Statute under which it was promulgated. However, it does contend that plaintiff’s theory of recovery is based upon a misinterpretation of the regulation and a misconception of the purposes of the Act.

On a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found the facts specially, rendered its conclusions of law thereon and entered judgment denying the motion. From that ruling this appeal is prosecuted. By agreement of the parties, further proceedings in the District Court were ordered stayed until final determination of this appeal. In its brief, defendant calls our attention to the fact that, subsequently to the notice of appeal, plaintiff excepted defendant’s work gloves from the operation of the General Maximum Price Regulation, and made them the subject of Regulation No. 506, in which the sale price for each model is specifically fixed. Therefore it urges that the court’s ruling denying a temporary injunction has become a moot question, under United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U. S. 113, 40 S.Ct. 448, 64 L.Ed. 808. Plaintiff neither denies nor affirms these facts but denies their effect to render the question here presented a moot one. There is nothing in the record from which we can determine whether or not the question is moot.

The District Court filed a written opinion (52 F.Supp. 942) with which we are in accord. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F.2d 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-good-luck-glove-co-ca7-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack