Bowles v. Izakowitz

S.D. New York

Bowles v. Izakowitz

66 F. Supp. 156, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1527

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 12, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 66 F. Supp. 156 (Bowles v. Izakowitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowles v. Izakowitz, 66 F. Supp. 156, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1527 (S.D.N.Y. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

RIFKIND, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for an injunction pendente lite to restrain violations of M.P.R. 574, relating to cattle and calves. The affidavit submitted in support of the application shows that during the accounting period February 1, 1945, to February 28, 1945, defendants paid, in the aggregate, $28,004.50 for cattle which, by application of the formula established by the Regulation, were subject to a ceiling of $27,516.79. They have overpaid $487.72. Defendants admit the overpayment. They assert, however, that under the Regulation the fact of overpayment cannot be ascertained until after the cattle have been slaughtered and their yield determined. This is a defense which directly or indirectly challenges either the validity or the wisdom of the Regulation. The resolution of such questions has been withdrawn by Congress from the jurisdiction of the district court.

It does appear, however, that the amount of the excess payment is very small. Nothing of motive or purpose on the part of the defendants appears. The violation occurred [157]*157during the very first month of the operation of the Regulation. Under the circumstances, I believe a temporary injunction will not serve the purpose of effectuating the policy of the statute. However, should further violations occur, a basis would be available for the inference that defendants’ violation is not the product of mischance but of systematic disregard of the law. Hecht Co. v. Bowles. 1944, 321 U.S. 321, 328, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754.

The motion is, therefore, denied, with leave to renew.

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

RIFKIND, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for an injunction pendente lite to restrain violations of M.P.R. 574, relating to cattle and calves. The affidavit submitted in support of the application shows that during the accounting period February 1, 1945, to February 28, 1945, defendants paid, in the aggregate, $28,004.50 for cattle which, by application of the formula established by the Regulation, were subject to a ceiling of $27,516.79. They have overpaid $487.72. Defendants admit the overpayment. They assert, however, that under the Regulation the fact of overpayment cannot be ascertained until after the cattle have been slaughtered and their yield determined. This is a defense which directly or indirectly challenges either the validity or the wisdom of the Regulation. The resolution of such questions has been withdrawn by Congress from the jurisdiction of the district court.

It does appear, however, that the amount of the excess payment is very small. Nothing of motive or purpose on the part of the defendants appears. The violation occurred [157]*157during the very first month of the operation of the Regulation. Under the circumstances, I believe a temporary injunction will not serve the purpose of effectuating the policy of the statute. However, should further violations occur, a basis would be available for the inference that defendants’ violation is not the product of mischance but of systematic disregard of the law. Hecht Co. v. Bowles. 1944, 321 U.S. 321, 328, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754.

The motion is, therefore, denied, with leave to renew.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 F. Supp. 156, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-izakowitz-nysd-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack