Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 10833.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 10833.,10833. |
| Citation | 194 F.2d 346,90 US App. DC 169 |
| Parties | HAMILTON MFG. CO. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
J. Bond Smith and Warren W. Grimes, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Donovan Divet, Special Atty., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., with whom William T. Kelley, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, James W. Cassedy, Asst. General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, and Alan B. Hobbes, Atty., Federal Trade Commission, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition to review an order of the Federal Trade Commission issued under authority of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.1
Petitioner Company manufactures and sells in interstate commerce punchboards and push cards. Some of these articles are designed in such fashion as to indicate their intended use in the sale of merchandise. Others are not so designed.
The order of the Commission directed the Company to cease and desist from "Selling or distributing in commerce, as `commerce' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, push cards, punchboards, or other lottery devices, which are to be used or may be used in the sale or distribution of merchandise to the public by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme."
The objection of the Company goes to the phrase "or may be used". It insists that the clause in which that phrase appears should read "which are specially designed and intended to be used in the sale or distribution of merchandise", etc.
In its brief the Commission says, among other things:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had before it in Globe Cardboard Novelty Company, Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1951, 192 F. 2d 444, an order similar to the one now before us. That court declined to modify the order but limited its meaning by construction, saying, "We construe it to prohibit only the distribution in interstate commerce of any push card,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dolcin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission
...clear statement of its intended meaning, rather than to construe an admittedly ambiguous phrase." Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 194 F.2d 346, 347.12 We think that there will be less ambiguity, and closer conformity to the Commission's findings, if......
-
Marco Sales Company v. FTC
...Lichtenstein v. FTC, 194 F.2d 607 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 819, 73 S.Ct. 15, 97 L.Ed. 638 (1952); Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. FTC, 90 U.S.App. D.C. 169, 194 F.2d 346 (1952); Globe Cardboard Novelty Co., Inc. v. FTC, 192 F.2d 444 (3d Cir. 1951); Chas. A. Brewer & Sons v. FTC, 158 F.2d 74 ......
-
Gellman v. FTC
...abandoned and wishes to have dismissed without prejudice its request for injunctive relief. 2 See Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 194 F.2d 346, 348 ("intended to be used"); James v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 78, rehearing deni......
-
Lichtenstein v. Federal Trade Commission
...a tendered issue of punch board and push card devices which "may be used" in the sale of merchandise. Cf. Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, D.C.Cir., 194 F.2d 346; Lee Boyer's Candy v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 261 and cases there The board's order second above......