Morgan v. Limbaugh
Decision Date | 13 September 1947 |
Docket Number | 31663. |
Citation | 44 S.E.2d 394,75 Ga.App. 663 |
Parties | MORGAN v. LIMBAUGH. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the rule that general allegations in pleadings ordinarily are good as against a general demurrer, the general allegations of liability in the petition, there being no special demurrer, were sufficient to state a cause of action, and it was error to sustain a general demurrer and dismiss the petition.
L. D. Burns, Jr., of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Margaret Hills and Helen Douglas Mankin, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
W. F Morgan(the tenant) sued Mrs. P. J. Limbaugh(the landlord) for treble damages for failing and refusing to refund, in accordance with an order of the Administrator for the defense-area in which the rented property was located, rent collected in excess of that permitted under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942as amended, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq.The petition alleged in substance that the property in question was subject to the maximum rent regulations issued by the Office of Price Administration that on January 16, 1947, the Area Rent Office issued an order reducing the maximum rent on the premises involved retroactively from August 1, 1946, from $50 per month to $27.50 per month, and ordered the defendant to refund to the plaintiff the excess charged within 30 days from the date of the order; that the defendant failed and refused to refund said overcharge in accordance with the order which constituted a violation of the Act and gave the plaintiff the right to sue for three times the amount of the overcharge which was $22.50 per month for five months, or $112.50.The suit was for $337.50 plus attorney's fees.The trial court dismissed the petition on a general demurrer and the exception is to that judgment.
Under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942as amended, any person selling a commodity, and renting property within a rental defense-area is deemed a selling of a commodity, who 'violates a regulation, order, or price schedule prescribing a maximum price or maximum prices,' is subject to liability for reasonable attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court, plus 'not more than three times the amount of the overcharge or the overcharges, upon which the action is based,' unless 'the defendant proves that the violation of the regulation, order, or price schedule in question was neither willfull nor the result of failure to take practicable precautions against the occurrance of the violation.'The tenant may institute an action within 30 days from the date of the occurrance of the violation, and thereafter either the tenant or the administrator, but not both, may sue within a one-year period.Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 925(e).Regulations prolmulgated under the Act provide that the 'administrator at any time, on his own initiative or on application of the tenant, may order a decrease of the maximum rent otherwise allowable' on certain grounds therein stated.Rent Regulation for Housing, § 5(c).The validity of any order of the administrator decreasing rents is reviewable only by the Emergency Court of Appeals as established by the Act and its decision may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by certiorari.50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 924(c and d), Cohen v. Begner,75 Ga.App. 520, 43 S.E.2d 749.Section 10 of Rent Regulation for Housing provides that persons violating any provision of this regulation are subject to criminal penalties, civil enforcement actions and suits for treble damages as provided for by the Act.However, no person shall be held liable for damages or penalties in any court'on any grounds for or in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith pursuant to any provision of this Act or any regulation, order, price schedule, requirement, or agreement thereunder * * *.'50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 925(d).
The petition of the plaintiff which was attacked by the general demurrer of the defendant alleged that the maximum rent on the property involved was established by an order issued by the Area Rent Office on January 16, 1947, which reduced maximum rent retroactively from August 1, 1946, from $50 per month to $27.50 per month, and ordered a refund of the overcharge of $22.50 per month within 30 days from the date of the order; that the defendant failed and refused to refund said overcharge in accordance with the order, and that such failure and refusal to make refund constituted a violation of the Act, subjecting the defendant to treble damages and attorney's fees.The difference between the maximum rent of $50 per month as paid by the plaintiff and the amount established by the order of the Area Rent Office of $27.50 per month was $22.50 per month, and the period covered by the order was five months, from August 1, 1946, to January 1 1947, making a total overcharge of $112.50, the amount the administrator ordered refunded to the plaintiff within 30 days, and the plaintiff sued for three times that amount and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Clarke County School Dist. v. Madden
...Yopp v. Johnson, 51 Ga.App. 925(2), 181 S.E. 596. As against a general demurrer general allegations are sufficient. Morgan v. Limbaugh, 75 Ga.App. 663, 44 S.E.2d 394. In the instant case, the defendant Clarke County School District was created by the act approved March 7, 1955 (Ga.L.1955, p......
-
Dodd v. Newton
...110 Ga. 707, 718, 36 S.E. 409; those of other Federal courts are not binding upon the Georgia appellate courts. Morgan v. Limbaugh, 75 Ga.App. 663, 666, 44 S.E.2d 394; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Anderson, 73 Ga.App. 343, 348, 36 S.E.2d In 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 204, p. 1122, it i......
-
Scott v. State
... ... Shearouse v. Morgan, 111 Ga. 858, 36 S.E. 927.3. (a) Notice of sanction and time and place of hearing of such certiorari may be waived. New v. Le Hardy, 46 Ga ... ...
-
Scott v. State
... ... the same was, under the law relating thereto, served too ... late. Shearouse v. Morgan, 111 Ga. 858, 36 S.E ... 3 ... (a) Notice of sanction and time and place of hearing of such ... certiorari may be waived. New ... ...