Morrison v. Taylor

Fifth Circuit

Morrison v. Taylor

145 F.2d 466, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2542

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 1944

DocketNo. 11153

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 F.2d 466 (Morrison v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrison v. Taylor, 145 F.2d 466, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2542 (5th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thé suit was for the statutory penalties prescribed for violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 901 et seq. The claim was that though the rental of the premises had been fixed at $25 per month, the defendant, without applying to the rent control authorities and without obtaining permission from them to raise it, had increased the rent to $32.50 per month. The defense was that the property was business property and its rents not subject to the Act. The evidence established without dispute: that the property was a business building in the business part of town; that it was used for business purposes, a three chair barber shop being conducted in it; and that part, but not how much, of the rear of it was occupied as living quarters. The District Judge, on evidence fully supporting his finding, found: That the property was a brick commercial building, predominantly used by plaintiff, Morrison, as a barber shop; that any living in the building by Morrison was purely incidental; that the rental of it was not governed by the Emergency Price Control Act; and that plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to recover. He was right in so concluding. His judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thé suit was for the statutory penalties prescribed for violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 901 et seq. The claim was that though the rental of the premises had been fixed at $25 per month, the defendant, without applying to the rent control authorities and without obtaining permission from them to raise it, had increased the rent to $32.50 per month. The defense was that the property was business property and its rents not subject to the Act. The evidence established without dispute: that the property was a business building in the business part of town; that it was used for business purposes, a three chair barber shop being conducted in it; and that part, but not how much, of the rear of it was occupied as living quarters. The District Judge, on evidence fully supporting his finding, found: That the property was a brick commercial building, predominantly used by plaintiff, Morrison, as a barber shop; that any living in the building by Morrison was purely incidental; that the rental of it was not governed by the Emergency Price Control Act; and that plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to recover. He was right in so concluding. His judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F.2d 466, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-taylor-ca5-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack