Batson v. Porter, 5462.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 5462.,5462. |
| Citation | 154 F.2d 566 |
| Parties | BATSON v. PORTER, Adm'r, Office of Price Administration. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
James H. Price, Jr., of Greenville, S. C. (James H. Price and James D. Poag, both of Greenville, S. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Nathan Siegel, Sp. Appellate Atty., Office of Price Administration, of Washington, D. C. (George Moncharsh, Deputy Adm'r for Enforcement, Milton Klein, Director, Litigation Division, and David London, Chief, Appellate Branch, Office of Price Administration, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and TIMMERMAN, District Judge.
Summary judgment for $3787.14 and costs was entered against Roy S. Batson, defendant in the District Court, based upon the pleadings which showed that he had sold meats at wholesale in excess of the ceiling prices established by the regulations issued by the Office of Price Administration. In addition the defendant was enjoined from making sales in violation of the regulations then or subsequently issued by the Administrator. The action involves the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 901 et seq., as amended by the Stabilization Extension Act of 1944, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 901 et seq.
The appellant contends that the entry of the summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, was not authorized by the state of the pleadings which are set out in detail in the carefully considered opinion of the District Court in Bowles v. Batson, 61 F.Supp. 839. The contention is based on the grounds: (1) That the ceiling price on meat sold by the defendant as a wholesale dealer was confiscatory and unconstitutional; (2) that the spirit of the statute was not violated by the defendant because the retail dealers who purchased the goods resold them within the retail ceiling price; (3) that the retail dealers who purchased the goods from the defendant had constituted him their agent to obtain the meat for them with the understanding and assurance, which were carried out, that they would absorb the difference between the ceiling price and the defendant's charges and would not pass on the excess to the consuming public; (4) that in view of these circumstances there was no wilful violation of the established ceiling price by the defendant.
The first and fourth of these grounds were raised in the District Court and were adequately disposed of in the opinion of the court where it was shown that the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the regulations was vested exclusively in the Emergency Court of Appeals and that the defendant's conduct amounted to a wilful violation of the regulations since it was knowingly and deliberately performed. See 61 F.Supp. 844. Little need be added to what is said in the opinion with respect to the second and third grounds on which the defense is based. It is obvious that the defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State
...facts under Rule 89 of the Circuit Court Rules. Southern Railway Company v. Crosby, 201 F.2d 878 (4th Cir. 1953); Batson v. Porter, 154 F.2d 566 (4th Cir. 1946). Moreover, as a trial judge for the past seventeen years before coming to this Court, I never tried a case in which there was a co......
-
Janczyk v. Davis
...Heuer v. Basin Park Hotel & Resort, 114 F.Supp. 604 (W.D.Ark., 1953); United States v. Laney, 96 F.Supp. 482 (ED SC, 1951); Batson v. Porter, 154 F.2d 566 (CA4, 1946); Billingslea v. Greaves, 196 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.Civ.App., 1946). 4 However, the failure to properly answer the requests for adm......
-
In re Fisherman's Wharf Fillet, Inc.
...as a matter of law.10 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a). As far back as 1946, this has been the case law of this circuit. See Batson v. Porter, 154 F.2d 566, 568 (4th Cir.1946); Donovan v. Porter, 584 F.Supp. 202, 207-08 (D.Md. 1984); see also Foxworth v. World Book Encyclopedia, Inc., 838 F.2d 466, 1......
-
Pulvermann v. AS Abell Company, Civ. No. 6967
...the time required, such facts, under Rule 36(a) are, by the express language of the Rule, deemed to be admitted as true. Batson v. Porter, 4 Cir., 154 F.2d 566; Gilbert v. General Motors Corporation, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 997; Adventures in Good Eating v. Best Places to Eat, 7 Cir., 131 F. 2d 80......