Hulbert v. Twin Falls County

Supreme Court

Hulbert v. Twin Falls County

327 U.S. 103, 66 S. Ct. 444, 90 L. Ed. 560, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2806

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 4, 1946

Docket238

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 327 U.S. 103 (Hulbert v. Twin Falls County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hulbert v. Twin Falls County, 327 U.S. 103, 66 S. Ct. 444, 90 L. Ed. 560, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2806 (1946).

Pincite

Opinions

[104]*104Mr. Justice Black

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner Hulbert bid $1,050 for a used farm-type gasoline tractor which Twin Falls County, Idaho, offered for sale at an auction. His was the highest bid. Upon being informed by the Office of Price Administration that the amount bid was above the ceiling price pf $723.56, petitioner refused to pay the full amount. He tendered $723.56 which the County refused to accept. Thereupon the County sued the petitioner in the state district court for $1,050. Petitioner tendered $1,050 to be disposed of according to the outcome of the case. He defended on the ground that he had been advised by the Office of Price Administration that the regulation setting a ceiling price was applicable and stated that he was willing to pay any sum up to $1,050 which was not prohibited by this regulation. The Administrator intervened, alleging that the bid price exceeded the ceiling price fixed by Maximum Price Regulation 133¹ and that the regulation was applicable to the sale of a tractor by the County. Th'e County stated that prior to the sale it had been advised by the County Prosecuting Attorney that the sale would be controlled by § 30-708 of the Idaho Code, Ann., and that the Office of Price Administration regulations were inapplicable. The Idaho district court held the sale subject to the Emergency Price Control Act and to Regulation No. 133. The court gave judgment for the County for the ceiling price of $723.56, holding that the sale as to the amount above that ceiling price was void. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed. 66 Idaho -, 156 P. 2d 319. We granted certiorari because the supreme court’s decision conflicted with that of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Bowles v. Case, 149 F. 2d 777.

The only question properly before us is whether Maximum Price Regulation No. 133 applies to sales of tractors [105]*105by a county. In defining the term “person” the regulation uses the same language as § 302 (h) of the Emergency Price Control Act. In Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92, we held that that language makes the Act applicable to sales by States and their subdivisions such as this one. For the reasons set out in that opinion, this language as employed in Regulation No. 133 makes that regulation applicable to the sale of the tractor by the County.

Reversed.

Me. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

[104]*104Mr. Justice Black

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner Hulbert bid $1,050 for a used farm-type gasoline tractor which Twin Falls County, Idaho, offered for sale at an auction. His was the highest bid. Upon being informed by the Office of Price Administration that the amount bid was above the ceiling price pf $723.56, petitioner refused to pay the full amount. He tendered $723.56 which the County refused to accept. Thereupon the County sued the petitioner in the state district court for $1,050. Petitioner tendered $1,050 to be disposed of according to the outcome of the case. He defended on the ground that he had been advised by the Office of Price Administration that the regulation setting a ceiling price was applicable and stated that he was willing to pay any sum up to $1,050 which was not prohibited by this regulation. The Administrator intervened, alleging that the bid price exceeded the ceiling price fixed by Maximum Price Regulation 133¹ and that the regulation was applicable to the sale of a tractor by the County. Th'e County stated that prior to the sale it had been advised by the County Prosecuting Attorney that the sale would be controlled by § 30-708 of the Idaho Code, Ann., and that the Office of Price Administration regulations were inapplicable. The Idaho district court held the sale subject to the Emergency Price Control Act and to Regulation No. 133. The court gave judgment for the County for the ceiling price of $723.56, holding that the sale as to the amount above that ceiling price was void. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed. 66 Idaho -, 156 P. 2d 319. We granted certiorari because the supreme court’s decision conflicted with that of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Bowles v. Case, 149 F. 2d 777.

The only question properly before us is whether Maximum Price Regulation No. 133 applies to sales of tractors [105]*105by a county. In defining the term “person” the regulation uses the same language as § 302 (h) of the Emergency Price Control Act. In Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92, we held that that language makes the Act applicable to sales by States and their subdivisions such as this one. For the reasons set out in that opinion, this language as employed in Regulation No. 133 makes that regulation applicable to the sale of the tractor by the County.

Reversed.

Me. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 U.S. 103, 66 S. Ct. 444, 90 L. Ed. 560, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulbert-v-twin-falls-county-scotus-1946.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack