Bowles v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 11022.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 11022.,11022. |
| Citation | 146 F.2d 155 |
| Parties | BOWLES, Administrator, OPA, v. TEXAS LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Nathan Siegel, Appellate Atty., O.P. A., of Washington, D. C., David B. Love, Regional Litigation Atty., O.P.A., of Dallas, Tex., and William P. Dobbins, District
Enforcement Atty., O.P.A., and W. R. Smith, Jr., U. S. Atty., both of San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
Elbert Hooper, of Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
The appellant is the administrator of the Office of Price Administration under the Emergency Price Control Act of Jan. 30, 1942, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 901 et seq., as amended. The appellee is a State Board established under the laws of Texas to administer the State's laws regulating alcoholic beverages. Such beverages are not sold to the consumer by the State, and may be sold only by persons licensed by the State. Liquors illegally produced or handled are to be seized and condemned as forfeited to the State by courts of competent jurisdiction at the suit of the Attorney General in the name of the State, and then turned over to the Board for "public or private sale in such place or manner as it may deem best; provided, that the Board shall exercise diligent effort to obtain the best available price for anything thus sold." The proceeds of sale go into the State Treasury as a special fund for the enforcement of the liquor laws. Texas Liquor Control Act as amended in 1943, Vernon's Texas Ann. P.C. Arts. 666 — 30, 666 — 42.
The Board offered for sale on Oct. 15, 1943, about 100 cases of whiskies and wines which had been duly forfeited, the notice to bidders stating that the best available price would be accepted, but that the purchaser must assume full responsibility to the Office of Price Administration on any resale. A notice of the intended sale was sent to the regional representative of the Office of Price Administration, that a test case might be made if desired. The appellant thereupon filed a petition to enjoin the sale or any other like it, because under maximum Price Regulation 193, 2 F.R. 3153, as amended, such liquors were covered, 7 F.R. 6006; but the State as a seller had no maximum price fixed thereby and was bound 20 days before offering the commodity for sale to apply to the Office of Price Administration for the fixing of a price, which had not been done. The Board by motion to dismiss and by answer admitted the facts alleged but contended the Emergency Price Control Act and the regulations did not apply to a State acting under its police powers to enforce its laws; that the sale was pursuant to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; and that the sales by the Board for the past four years were, on stated figures, less than 0.0014 percent of the whiskey sold in Texas, and 0.0034 percent of the wine, and so insignificant as not to be within the purpose of the Federal Act and the regulations made under it. The facts stated in the answer were also admitted. The court thereupon treated the Act and the regulations as valid, but held them inapplicable to the Board, and denied an injunction by final decree. This appeal followed.
No question of the constitutionality of the Emergency Price Control Act as applied to the State of Texas and its governmental agency is raised or decided. No question of the legality of the maximum price orders need be considered. Such questions are for the Emergency Court of Appeals, and the Board has not applied to that court. Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 144, 64 S.Ct. 474; Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 64 S.Ct. 641. The district court could only consider whether the price regulations, properly construed, applied to the Board, and must be supposed to have held they did not. At the date of the judgment, April 3, 1944, Supplementary Order No. 10, as issued July 15, 1942, 7 F.R. 5481, was of force. On Aug. 14, 1944, this Supplementary Order No. 10 was revised to read,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowles v. Skaggs
...covered by MPR 139. He urges the applicability of Supplementary Order No. 10 upon the authority of Bowles, Adm'r v. Texas Liquor Control Board et al., 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 155. That case, however, did not require consideration of the exceptions to the exemptions established by the Supplementary......
-
Bowles v. Texas Liquor Control Board
...the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 1 Bowles, Administrator, v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 155. 2 Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 493, 20 L. Ed. 176; In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 17 S.Ct. 677, 41 L.Ed. 1154; Bowles......
-
Bowles v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 273.
...in 1943; Vernon's Texas Annotated Penal Code, Title 11, Arts. 666—30, 666— 42. The United States Circuit Court, Fifth Circuit, on 146 F.2d 155, 157, speaking through Circuit Judge Sibley, affirmed the judgment of the District Court, and in so doing, held that the sale was in the nature of a......
-
General Exchange Ins. Corporation v. Tierney, 11426.
...just been adverted to, is not controlling in this case. Fugate v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 158 P.2d 177, 157 A.L.R. 1299; Bowles v. Texas Liquor Board, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 155; Trial Court's opinion, 60 F.Supp. We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. ...