Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BOWLES v. LEITHOLD

May 28, 1945

BOWLES
v.
LEITHOLD et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KALODNER

This is an action for an injunction brought by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration pursuant to Section 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(a). The defendants, William and Emily Leithold, individually and as copartners trading as the Custom Maid Brassiere Company, are charged with failing to comply with the basic record-keeping provisions of General Maximum Price Regulation (7 F.R. 3153) and Maximum Price Regulation No. 220 (7 F.R. 7282). Sections 1499.11 and 1499.12 of the General Maximum Price Regulation require the preparation and retention of a base period statement and current pricing records. Section 1215.1557 of Maximum Price Regulation No. 220 requires certain additional reports to be filed with the Office of Price Administration.

The defendants admit that they are subject to these regulations, and further, that they have violated the provisions set out above. It may be said, however, that since the filing of this bill the defendants have complied, in so far as form is concerned, with the record keeping requirements of the General Maximum Price Regulation. At the hearing the defendants, through their counsel, stated that they had discontinued the manufacture of elastic garments and would not in the future manufacture the same; hence, they are no longer subject to Maximum Price Regulation No. 220.

 The only questions which remain for disposition are whether an injunction ought to issue, and if so, whether the injunction sought by the plaintiff is too broad in its coverage.

 The hearing was on a motion for preliminary injunction, but the parties have stipulated that it be considered as a final hearing on this matter.

 On the basis of the stipulations between the parties, the arguments and the briefs of counsel, I make the following findings of fact:

 1. Plaintiff is the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration.

 2. Defendants are copartners engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling, other than at retail, brassieres.

 3. On May 11, 1942, the General Maximum Price Regulation (7 Fed.Reg. 3153 et seq.), called GMPR, issued by the Office of Price Administration pursuant to the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., became effective establishing maximum prices, inter alia, for the sale of brassieres not containing rubber. Since that date, said Regulation, as amended, has been and still is in effect.

 4. On September 19, 1942, Maximum Price Regulation No. 220 (7 F.R. 7282) duly issued by the Office of Price Administration pursuant to the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, became effective establishing maximum prices, inter alia, for the sale of brassieres containing rubber. Since that date, said Regulation, as amended, has been and still is in effect.

 5. Section 1499.11 of the General Maximum Price Regulation required that all sellers subject thereto prepare, on or before July 1, 1942, on the basis of all available information and records, a statement showing the highest prices charged for such commodities as they delivered during March, 1942, their offering prices for the delivery of such commodities during the said month, together with an appropriate description or identification of each such commodity, as well as showing their customary allowances, discounts, and other price differentials.

 6. Section 1499.12 of the General Maximum Price Regulation provides that every person selling commodities for which maximum prices are established thereby shall keep records showing as precisely as possible the basis upon which he determined maximum prices for those commodities delivered by him after May 11, 1942, the effective date of the said Regulation.

 7. Section 1315.1557 of Maximum Price Regulation No. 220 requires sellers of commodities containing rubber to file with the Office of Price Administration certain reports of maximum prices for such commodities.

 8. The defendants did not, on or before July 1, 1942, nor at any time prior to the institution of this suit, on October 2, 1944, prepare the base period statement required by Section 1499.11 of the General Maximum Price Regulation.

 9. The defendants did not, at any time prior to the institution of this suit on October 2, 1944, keep any records showing the basis upon which they determined maximum prices for commodities sold by them since May 11, 1942, as required ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.