Haber v. Garthly

Third Circuit

Haber v. Garthly

165 F.2d 211

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1948

DocketNo. 9396

StatusPublished

This text of 165 F.2d 211 (Haber v. Garthly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haber v. Garthly, 165 F.2d 211 (3d Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole substantial question presented by the appeal at bar is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury that the defendants were guilty of a wilful violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, and the plaintiffs therefore were entitled to recover treble damages as provided in Section 205(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925(e). An examination of the record convinces us that there was ample evidence to sustain a conclusion of wilful violation on the part of the defendants.

Accordingly the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole substantial question presented by the appeal at bar is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury that the defendants were guilty of a wilful violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, and the plaintiffs therefore were entitled to recover treble damages as provided in Section 205(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925(e). An examination of the record convinces us that there was ample evidence to sustain a conclusion of wilful violation on the part of the defendants.

Accordingly the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 F.2d 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haber-v-garthly-ca3-1948.