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. PECHERSKY

February 14, 1946

BOWLES
v.
PECHERSKY



The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY

This is a civil action brought by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration against the defendant, Louis Pechersky, t/a L. Pechersky's Market, under and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2, 4, and 205(a) and (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 902, 904, 925(a, e).

It was the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant violated Maximum Price Regulation 423, and more particularly that the defendant sold Heinz' Tomato Soup to his retail trade at a price of two cans for 25 cents, and that under the provisions of said Maximum Price Regulation 423, the ceiling price for the retail sale of Heinz' Tomato Soup was 12 cents per can.

 It was the further contention of the plaintiff that the defendant sold Chef's Bay-Or-Dee Spaghetti at 39 cents per can to his retail trade, which was in excess of the selling price established by Maximum Price Regulation 423, which fixed the maximum price to be charged for said commodity at 35 cents.

 The plaintiff claimed that the defendant is liable to the Administrator, on behalf of the United States, for the amount of $ 50, and in addition thereto, the plaintiff prays that a preliminary and final injunction directed to the defendant, his agents, employees, servants, attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, jointly or severally, enjoining and restraining them from:

 1. Selling or delivering or offering to sell or deliver any grocery item unless and until defendant has his current selling price for each item of food covered by said regulation clearly shown on the item or near the place in his store where the items are offered for sale.

 2. Selling, offering to sell, delivering or offering to deliver at retail any grocery item at a price higher than the maximum prices established therefor by MPR 423 or any other regulation or price schedule promulgated by the Office of Price Administration establishing or relating to maximum retail prices for groceries.

 3. Offering, soliciting, attempting or agreeing to do any of the foregoing.

 This matter was presented for hearing before the Court without a jury, and each of the parties to said proceeding have filed Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

 The Court, after hearing and consideration of the Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law together with the arguments presented by counsel for the party litigants, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

 Findings of Fact

 1. The plaintiff is the duly appointed and qualified Administrator of the Office of Price Administration.

 2. This action is before the Court pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2, 4, 205(a) and (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 902, 904, 925(a, e), and jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by virtue of Section 205(c) and (e).

 3. Maximum Price Regulation 423, Section 1351.362 establishes and provides for the maximum retail prices which, at the time more particularly hereinafter referred to, the defendant was legally permitted to charge and receive for the grocery items more specifically hereinafter set forth.

 4. On March 5, 1945, the defendant was the owner and operator of a retail meat and grocery business situate at 741 Mellon Street, in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and on said date was governed by the provisions of Maximum Price Regulation 423, Section 1351.362 in the conducting of the said business.

 5. On March 5, 1945, the defendant published in his place of business, at the location where Heinz' Tomato Soup was kept for sale, that the selling price of said commodity was two cans for 25 cents.

 6. The defendant made a statement in writing to an investigator of the Office of Price Administration, which was signed by the defendant, in which he admitted that Heinz' Tomato Soup was being sold by him at the price of two cans for 25 cents.

 7. The defendant honestly believed that the price charged by him for Heinz' Tomato Soup of two cans for 25 cents was the correct selling price as established by the regulation issued by the Office of Price Administration.

 8. That under the provisions of Maximum Price Regulation 423, Section 1351.362, the maximum price which the defendant was legally permitted to charge and receive for Heinz' Tomato Soup was 12 cents per can.

 9. That the defendant operated a small retail meat and grocery place of business, which is commonly known as a neighborhood grocery store or a one man place of business, and no persons were employed by the said defendant to assist him in the conducting or operating of said business.


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.