Haines v. Porter

D.C. Circuit

Haines v. Porter

158 F.2d 188, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 318, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 25, 1946

DocketNo. 9241

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 F.2d 188 (Haines v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haines v. Porter, 158 F.2d 188, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 318, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358 (D.C. Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree for an injunction and treble damages founded upon the sale of appellant’s automobile above a ceiling price fixed pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act. 56 Stat. 33, §: 205(a) and (e), as amended, 58 Stat. 640,. 50 U.S.C.A.War Appendix, § 925(a) and. (e). Appellant is a dealer in automobiles. It is not disputed that he owned the automobile and that it was willfully sold by his regular salesman at a price above the-ceiling. Appellant denies that he personally participated in the violation of the Act and attacks the evidence which tended to show that he did so. But we need not consider whether that evidence was competent and sufficient, for personal participation -by the owner of a business is not necessary to his civil responsibility for vio-[189]*189latious of the Act by his agents. Bowles v. Lee’s Ice Cream, Inc., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 148 F.2d 113; Jung v. Bowles, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 726; Di Melia v. Bowles, 1 Cir., 148 F.2d 725, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 886, 65 S.Ct. 1581, 89 L.Ed. 2000; Talbert v. Sims, 4 Cir., 143 F.2d 958; Carter v. Bowles, D.C.S.C., 56 F.Supp. 278; Bowles v. Dietter, D.C.Conn., 61 F.Supp. 880.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree for an injunction and treble damages founded upon the sale of appellant’s automobile above a ceiling price fixed pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act. 56 Stat. 33, §: 205(a) and (e), as amended, 58 Stat. 640,. 50 U.S.C.A.War Appendix, § 925(a) and. (e). Appellant is a dealer in automobiles. It is not disputed that he owned the automobile and that it was willfully sold by his regular salesman at a price above the-ceiling. Appellant denies that he personally participated in the violation of the Act and attacks the evidence which tended to show that he did so. But we need not consider whether that evidence was competent and sufficient, for personal participation -by the owner of a business is not necessary to his civil responsibility for vio-[189]*189latious of the Act by his agents. Bowles v. Lee’s Ice Cream, Inc., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 148 F.2d 113; Jung v. Bowles, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 726; Di Melia v. Bowles, 1 Cir., 148 F.2d 725, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 886, 65 S.Ct. 1581, 89 L.Ed. 2000; Talbert v. Sims, 4 Cir., 143 F.2d 958; Carter v. Bowles, D.C.S.C., 56 F.Supp. 278; Bowles v. Dietter, D.C.Conn., 61 F.Supp. 880.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F.2d 188, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 318, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haines-v-porter-cadc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack