Bowles v. Texas Liquor Control Board
| Decision Date | 04 May 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 11298.,11298. |
| Citation | 148 F.2d 265 |
| Parties | BOWLES, Adm'r, Office of Price Administration, v. TEXAS LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Fleming James, Jr., Director, Litigation Division, Office of Price Administration, of Washington, D. C., David B. Love, Regional Litigation Atty., O. P. A., of Dallas, Tex., William P. Dobbins, District Enforcement Atty., O. P. A., of San Antonia, Tex., and James O'Niell, Enforcement Atty., O. P. A., of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Elbert Hooper, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
In 1943 the Texas Liquor Control Board, an instrumentality of the State of Texas, threatened to sell at public auction to the highest bidder for cash a quantity of liquor that the State had acquired by forfeiture from offenders against its laws. The Administrator of the Office of Price Administration sought to enjoin the sale on the ground that the State had not applied to the O. P. A. for a maximum price thereon as required by regulations promulgated under the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. The injunction ultimately was denied because such sales by the State were judicial sales, and the regulations then in force expressly excluded judicial sales from the operation of the maximum price regulations.1
While that case was pending, the Administrator amended the regulations to provide that the maximum price regulations should apply to judicial sales of distilled spirits made by governmental bodies or agencies held pursuant to statute. In January, 1945, the Board again threatened to sell the same liquor, and other distilled spirits similarly acquired, at public auction without applying to the O. P. A. for a price thereon, and the Administrator again applied to the court below for an injunction forbidding the sale. The court denied the injunction, holding that the regulation was intended to relate to governmental agencies in the exercise of proprietary functions only, and that its provisions were not applicable to sales by a state pursuant to its proper governmental activities. The Administrator appealed.
We cannot agree that the regulation is susceptible of so narrow an interpretation. An overwhelming majority of all business transactions consummated by a state are in the exercise of its governmental functions; its proprietary dealings are relatively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowles v. Wheeler
...v. Pepper Bros., 3 Cir., 142 F.2d 340, 343; Bowles v. Cullen, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 621; Bowles v. American Brewery, supra; Bowles v. Texas Liquor Board, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 265. To sustain the district court's judgment, appellee maintains that the Act does not apply to log booms, but this argument......
-
Porter v. Eastern Sugar Associates
...apply to services rendered by the Sugar Company in Puerto Rico. See Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 66 S.Ct. 438; Bowles v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 265, 266; Cullen v. Bowles, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 621, 624; Reeves v. Bowles, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 151 F.2d 16, certiorari denied ......
-
Bowles v. Carothers
...Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 64 S.Ct. 641, 88 L.Ed. 892; Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 65 S.Ct. 1215; Bowles v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 265; Cullen v. Bowles, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 621; United States v. Pepper Bros., 3 Cir., 142 F.2d 340; Bowles v. Meyers, 4 Cir......
-
City of Dallas v. Bowles
...immaterial that the renting was in a sense incidental to the performance of an orthodox "governmental" activity. Bowles v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 5 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 265. A judgment will be entered dismissing the ...