Bowles v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 12 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8741-8744.,8741-8744. |
| Citation | 149 F.2d 1010 |
| Parties | BOWLES, Adm'r, Office of Price Administration, v. ROGERS. SAME v. FEIDLER. SAME v. CELIHOWSKI. SAME v. GLINGLE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Fleming James, Jr., and Edward H. Hatton, Office of Price Administration, both of Washington, D. C., John E. Scott, Office of Price Administration, of Indianapolis, Ind., Thomas I. Emerson, Deputy Administrator for Enforcement, and Abraham Glasser, Sp. Appellate Atty., both of Washington, D. C., and Walter Heddesheimer, Regional Litigation Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Walter R. Arnold, of South Bend, Ind., and Don Kitch and John Kitch, both of Plymouth, Ind., for appellees.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MINTON, Circuit Judges.
In these cases only one question is presented for our consideration. In each case the defendant had sold a tractor and various pieces of tractor equipment to individuals who were engaged in the business of farming. Each defendant sold the machinery for a price which was above the ceiling price, and the Administrator sued each defendant for three times the amount of the sale price. The District Court held that the right of action did not belong to the Administrator, and denied him recovery in each case. These appeals were taken by the Administrator to reverse the judgment in each case.
Counsel for defendant Rogers admitted in the oral argument that a farmer is one who is "engaged in business" within the meaning of the statute. This defendant further states in his brief:
"* * * in the legal acceptance of the term, `business' is appropriate to designate the activity known as farming."
It has been held that "farming" is a "business" for the purpose of deducting losses in income taxes. Spence v. Johnson, 142 Ga. 267, 82 S.E. 646, Ann.Cas.1916A, 1195. The same construction has been given the word "farming" under a statute, providing that slander against a person may consist of charges made "* * * in reference to his trade, office, or profession * * *." Whipple v. Commissioner, 263 Mass. 476, 161 N.E. 593. Under Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, it has been held that "farming" is a "business." Bowles v. Silverman, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 990. The sole question presented on this record, therefore, is whether the Administrator may sue for tripe the amount of the excess of the sale price over the ceiling price.
The statute which is controlling provides:1
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martini v. Porter
...the course of trade or business within the purview of § 205(e) of the Act. Cf. Bowles v. Trullinger, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 191; Bowles v. Rogers, 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 1010; Speten v. Bowles, 8 Cir., 146 F.2d 602, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 877, 65 S.Ct. 1023, 89 L.Ed. 1429; Bowles v. Jones, 10 Cir.,......
-
Young v. Margiotta
...act. Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 482; Bowles v. Glick Bros. Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 146 F.2d 566, 568; Bowles v. Rogers, 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 1010; Bowles v. Jones, 10 Cir., 151 F.2d 232, 234; Bowles v. Whayne, 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 375; Bowles v. Madl, 10 Cir., 153 F.2d 21; Bow......
-
Bayne v. Kingery
...v. Walton, 163 Kan. 642, 185 P.2d 154; Bowles v. Barker, 7 Cir., 155 F.2d 1022; Bowles v. Madl et al., 10 Cir., 153 F.2d 21; Bowles v. Rogers, 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 1010 57 F.Supp. 987); Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 482; Bowles v. Trullinger, 152 F.2d 191; Bowles v. West,......
-
Allen v. Walton
...or business' is in pari delicto. 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e).' This ruling is restated and applied in the following cases: Bowles v. Rogers, 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 1010; v. Trullinger 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 191; Bowles v. Whayne 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 375; Bowles v. Madl, 10 Cir., 153 F.2d 21; Bowles v. Ba......