Dorsey v. Martin, 3797.
Decision Date | 18 January 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 3797.,3797. |
Citation | 58 F. Supp. 722 |
Parties | DORSEY et al. v. MARTIN. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Edwin A. J. Blank, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Joseph Blank, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
This suit was brought to recover damages, counsel fees and costs under Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 33, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 925(e).
Defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because defendant leased the property as "agent" and because the damages, described by defendant as the "cumulative penalty," sought in the complaint are not in accord with Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act.
Plaintiffs have alleged that they rented the premises of 644-46 North 40th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at a monthly rental of $60, whereas on March 1, 1942, the rental for the same premises was $50, and that they paid $60 per month for ten months, from July, 1943, to April, 1944, inclusive. It is further alleged that the defendant demanded and received each month's rent.
I am of the opinion that the motion must be denied.
Examination of a copy of the lease executed by the parties, which was attached to the complaint, reveals that in the opening paragraph the defendant Martin disclosed himself as an agent. However, it does not appear from the lease, nor is it asserted by defendant, that plaintiffs were told who the principal was. The lease was signed by the defendant. The situation, then is characterized as that of a "partially disclosed principal." See Restatement Agency, Vol. 2, Sect. 321, comment (a). Martin was a party to the contract and is subject to separate liability and may be sued individually. Restatement, Agency, Vol. 2, Sect. 321 and comment (b). The Pennsylvania cases are in accord: Seyfert v. Bean, 1877, 83 Pa. 450; Hayes v. D. P. S. Nichols Co., 1916, 64 Pa.Super. 273, 276; Reading Co. v. Sobelman, 1944, 144 Pa.Super. 270, 19 A.2d 754. In Pennsylvania Railroad v. Rothstein & Sons, 1933, 109 Pa.Super. 96, at page 105, 165 A. 752, at page 755, the Court put the rule concisely:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Defendant asserts that Section 205 (e) is penalizing in nature, and therefore, as an agent, he ought not to be charged. On this issue I am in agreement with the opinion of this Court in Everly v. Zepp, 57 F.Supp. 303, where it was decided that the recovery allowed by the Act is in the nature of damages and is remedial as distinguished from penal. See also Huntington v. Attrill, 1882, 146 U.S. 657, 13 S.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123.
In any event, under the Act and the Regulations, it would appear that such an agent cannot escape liability. Section 205 (e) of the Act makes "any person" who violates the Act liable, and Section 13(a) (8) of Rent Regulation for Housing, 14 O.P.A. Service, page 200:351, defines "Landlord" as including "An owner, lessor, sublessor, assignee or other person receiving or ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stevenson v. Stoufer
...his executors may now be sued for the damages which would have been recoverable from him.' This holding was approved in Dorsey v. Martin, D.C.Pa., 58 F.Supp. 722. In Desper Warner Holding Company, 219 Minn. 607, 19 N.W.2d 62, 66, the court said: 'With respect to the argument that the cause ......
-
Banks v. Chas. Kurz Co.
...Agency, Sections 321 and 322; Lewis v. United States Navigation Co., Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1944, 57 F.Supp. 652, 655; Dorsey v. Martin, D.C.E.D.Pa., 1945, 58 F.Supp. 722, 723. The second issue raised by the respondent as affecting its liability relates to the nature of the charter. The arrang......
-
Mayer v. Buchanan.
...electricity and other utilities. There we held that the change resulted in new housing accommodations and that the older ceiling did not apply. 5Dorsey v. Martin, D.C., E.D.Pa., 58 F.Supp. 722; Saco Dairy Co. v. Norton, 140 Me. 204, 35 A.2d 857, 150 A.L.R. 1299; Dodge v. Blood, 299 Mich. 36......
-
Woods v. Bobbitt
...§ 925(e), Sections 2(a), 10 and 13 of the Rent Regulation. See also Bowles v. Ruppel, 3 Cir., 157 F.2d 944; Dorsey v. Martin, D.C., E. D. Pa., 58 F. Supp. 722; McFadden v. Shore, D.C., E. D. Pa., 60 F.Supp. 8; Kurland v. Bukspan, 184 Misc. 590, 55 N.Y.S.2d Reversed and remanded. COLEMAN, Di......