Brown v. Wyatt Food Stores
| Decision Date | 08 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 779. |
| Citation | 49 F. Supp. 538 |
| Parties | BROWN, Adm'r, Office of Price Administration, v. WYATT FOOD STORES, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
W. B. Harrell and Talbot Smith, Regional Atty., Office of Price Administration, both of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Paul Carrington, of Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, Act of January 30, 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 902, authorizes the price Administrator, to establish such maximum price, or prices, as in his judgment will be "generally fair and equitable" and will effectuate the purposes of the Act. This might be termed legislation by an executive officer.
This particular section, 902, Title 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, contains a great many directions to him as to the procedure which he shall follow.
Such regulations shall not be used, nor made to operate to compel changes in the business practices, cost practices, or methods, or means, or aid to distribution, established in any industry, except to prevent circumvention, or evasion of any regulation of the Act (Sub-division h).
Any person may within sixty days after the issuance of any regulation, file a protest setting forth objections. Explicit directions are given as to the manner of its preparation, its hearing and disposition. If the protest is denied in whole, or part, the protestant may file a complaint with the Emergency Court of Appeals, therein created, and sitting at Washington. Definite directions are given for the preparation of the appeal and for its final disposition.
If the complainant establishes to the satisfaction of that court that the regulation, order, or price schedule, is not in accordance with law, or "is arbitrary or capricious," it may be enjoined or set aside, either in part or entirely. If the protestant loses in his contest before that court, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme court.
The Act then states that "except as provided in this section, no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to consider the validity of any such regulation, order, or price schedule, or to stay, restrain, enjoin, or set aside, in whole or in part, any provision of this Act authorizing the issuance of such regulations or orders, or making effective any such price schedule, or any provision of any such regulation, order, or price schedule, or to restrain or enjoin the enforcement of any such provision." Sec. 204(924).
Sec. 205 (Sec. 925) of the Act provides that the Administrator may make application to the appropriate court (meaning state or national) for an order enjoining such acts or practices of any person who is about to violate any of the provisions of the Act, "or for an order enforcing compliance with such provision, and upon a showing by the Administrator that such person has engaged or is about to engage in any such acts or practices a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without bond."
There is no attempt in the Act to circumscribe the citizen's right to raise the question of the unconstitutionality of the Act. Clearly, the Act is constitutional, but, also clearly, the citizen would have a right to question it.
Art. 1, paragraph 8 of the Constitution declares that: "The Congress shall have Power * * * To declare War * * *, To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, * * *." This power is almost limitless. United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605-624, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed. 1302. While the Constitution has the Fifth Amendment, which is for the protection of the citizen, that protection will not work a destruction of the first general war-declaring and war-making provisions.
This review of the Act, though quite abbreviated, brings to the fore such provisions as now interest us and as are applicable to this suit brought by the Administrator against the defendant. The complaint prays for the statutory restraints and as a reason therefor, alleges a number of "violations of regulations."
The defendant shows that it is desirous of obeying the Act, and that if it has been remiss in the manner detailed by the complainant, it is because of unwitting errors on the part of some of its employees, or on the part of the complainant. It also seeks to avoid any restraint by pleading that some of the regulations made by the complainant are unreasonable when applied to a business such as the defendant conducts. That it contests the (1) construction of the regulations, (2) the validity of the regulations, (3) the construction of the statute, (4) the validity of the statute.
To this portion of the answer, the complainant directs a motion to strike. In support of that motion, he contends that this court has no jurisdiction to afford any such relief and calls to his assistance the provisions of the Act which are quoted above and which vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Emergency court and the Supreme court.
There are two roads pointed in this statute. One is for the citizen in his protest, and his remedy. That road leads to the Emergency court at Washington, and to the Supreme court. The other road is for the use of the Administrator. He enters court against the citizen. That court is neither the Emergency court nor the Supreme court. It is any state or national court which has jurisdiction of the controversy. It is the local court. That is the road upon which the parties arrive here. Show cause orders were issued to the defendant at the request of the plaintiff to exhibit to the court any reason he had why he should not be restrained.
The general authority given to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowles v. Meyers
...area for comparable housing accommodations on the maximum rent date." (Italics supplied.) 2 The decision in Brown v. Wyatt Food Stores, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 538, relied on by the judge below, is to the contrary, but it was decided prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Yakus and Wil......
-
Bowles v. Bonnie Bee Shop, 1805.
...orders or to enforce compliance with such regulations. It is true that Judge Atwell, in the case of Brown, Administrator, v. Wyatt Food Stores, D.C., 49 F. Supp. 538, 540, held that a defendant upon an application for an injunction or a mandatory order might challenge "the (1) construction ......