In re Ecorse Wholesale Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 5867.,5867. |
| Citation | 68 F. Supp. 561 |
| Parties | In re ECORSE WHOLESALE SUPPLY CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
George D. Haller, Dist. Litigation Atty., Office of Price Administration, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Fred H. Sims, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
The matter comes before this court on an order to show cause by defendant why it should not produce all its records required by a subpoena issued July 31, 1946, or in the alternative, make such records available for inspection by a duly authorized representative of the Office of Price Administration, at its place of business.
Respondent questions the right of the local office to issue subpoenas claiming that this is a power reserved entirely to the Administrator, Paul Porter, and one which cannot be delegated by him. The question has been recently discussed by both the Supreme Court and our own Court of Appeals. The cases of Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 62 S.Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed. 895, and Porter v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Company, 156 F.2d 891, are advanced by respondent as authority for its position.
In the Cudahy case, supra, 315 U.S. 357, 62 S.Ct. 653 the court said, "The Administrator is thus given all the powers with respect to subpoenas which are conferred upon the Federal Trade Commission, and no more." That was an action against the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor.
In the Mohawk case 156 F.2d 895 the Administrator of OPA contended that the powers necessarily given him as a war measure were greater than those granted any other Administrator, but the court held "That the Supreme Court in the Cudahy case had before it the same language and the same question and held that the statutory authority to delegate `his functions and duties' under the Act did not include the authority to delegate the subpoena power."
The court also gave the following history of the signing and issuing of subpoenas by the Price Administrator and his field representatives:
In the case at bar, however, the subpoenas were not signed by any one in the local office. They were presumably signed in Washington by Paul Porter and sent by him to the regional office where they were issued. So the question is not exactly the same as that appearing in either the Cudahy or Mohawk cases. Respondent does not seriously contend that Paul Porter did not sign the original subpoena and there is authority that unless the contrary appears, the signature of a public administrator is presumed to be genuine. Bowles v. Northwest Poultry & Dairy Products Co., 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 32, 33. Respondent claims, however that "issuing" means "act of sending out; to send out officially; to deliver by authority; to put into circulation;" that a paper sent out by Paul Porter has no authoritative effect until filled out and that in truth and in fact Paul Porter has not issued the same until it has been filled out, which should have been done by him in Washington before his signature.
We cannot follow the reasoning to that conclusion though there is some merit to respondent's contention. The Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., to be properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial