Bowles v. Patrick Lumber Co.

Ninth Circuit

Bowles v. Patrick Lumber Co.

151 F.2d 444, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2961

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1945

DocketNo. 11023

StatusPublished

This text of 151 F.2d 444 (Bowles v. Patrick Lumber 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. Patrick Lumber Co., 151 F.2d 444, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2961 (9th Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Price Administrator appeals from an adverse judgment in a suit for damages for sales of Douglas fir dimension lumber at prices allegedly in excess of the maximum contemplated by RMPR No. 26.

The question on the appeal concerns the interpretation of the regulation. The trial court found that the prices charged were not in excess of the maximum prescribed in Table 2, § 23, of the regulation, which table appellee had thought applicable to the transaction. The Administrator claims that this table fixed no price for the dimensions sold and that accordingly § 12 of the regulation came into play. This section provides that “if a seller wishes to sell a grade which is not specifically priced in the price tables, or wishes to make an addition for special workings, specifications, services, or other extras for which additions are not specifically permitted,” he must apply for a maximum price.

We are not disposed to disturb the determination below that Table 2 was applicable to the peculiar facts of the case. As the court observed, the question involved is a technical one in the industry. There was substantial evidence to support the finding made.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Price Administrator appeals from an adverse judgment in a suit for damages for sales of Douglas fir dimension lumber at prices allegedly in excess of the maximum contemplated by RMPR No. 26.

The question on the appeal concerns the interpretation of the regulation. The trial court found that the prices charged were not in excess of the maximum prescribed in Table 2, § 23, of the regulation, which table appellee had thought applicable to the transaction. The Administrator claims that this table fixed no price for the dimensions sold and that accordingly § 12 of the regulation came into play. This section provides that “if a seller wishes to sell a grade which is not specifically priced in the price tables, or wishes to make an addition for special workings, specifications, services, or other extras for which additions are not specifically permitted,” he must apply for a maximum price.

We are not disposed to disturb the determination below that Table 2 was applicable to the peculiar facts of the case. As the court observed, the question involved is a technical one in the industry. There was substantial evidence to support the finding made.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 F.2d 444, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-patrick-lumber-co-ca9-1945.