a month for twenty-one months, or $ 493.50. Defendant admits that he made no cash refund, and vaguely mentioned having made 'arrangements' with the tenant, which arrangements he did not elaborate upon when called as a witness by defendant's counsel.
Findings of Fact.
1. There was no reduction or change in the equipment or services provided by the landlord on the premises here involved.
2. Arthur S. Bailey was the Agent of the defendant for the collection of rents of the first floor apartment only.
3. There were overcharges of $ 11.50 a month for four months on the first floor apartment.
4. Defendant Stricklin made repayment of the overcharges to the tenant of the first floor apartment.
5. Defendant Stricklin made overcharges of $ 23.50 a month for twenty-one months on the upper floor apartment.
6. Defendant Stricklin did not make cash refunds of the overcharges alleged.
7. Defendant Stricklin told the tenant of the upper floor that she might occupy the lower floor and the upper floor when the tenant on the lower floor vacated.
8. Defendant Stricklin's refusal or neglect to refund the overcharges were not wilful and intentional.
Conclusions of Law.
1. Defendant Eugene Stricklin violated the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended.
2. Defendant Eugene Stricklin is liable in damages to the Plaintiff on behalf of the United States in the amount of $ 493.50, representing the amount of the overcharge on the upper floor apartment.
3. Defendant Eugene Stricklin in no way failed to furnish services to tenants occupying his premises in accordance with registration statements filed with the Office of Price Administration. Therefore, no injunction will issue thereon, as prayed for by the plaintiff.
4. Defendnat Eugene Stricklin did not violate the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, with reference to the lower floor apartment mentioned above.
5. Defendant Arthur S. Bailey did not violate the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended.
6. There is no indication that defendant Eugene Stricklin continued violations following receipt of the orders of the Office of Price Administration referred to as 'Exhibit A' and 'Exhibit B' above and, in the opinion of this Court, the strong measure of an injunction should not be applied.
It appearing that the defendant, Eugene Stricklin, is liable to the plaintiff, and that the defendant, Arthur S. Bailey, is not liable to the plaintiff, it is ordered that judgment be entered against defendant Eugene Stricklin and in favor of the Administrator, Office of Price Administration, in the sum of Four Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars and Fifty Cents ($ 493.50).
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.