New Orleans Laundries v. Porter

Decision Date18 November 1946
Docket NumberNo. 294.,294.
Citation157 F.2d 1013
PartiesNEW ORLEANS LAUNDRIES, Inc., v. PORTER, Price Adm'r.
CourtU.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

James R. Sharp, of Washington, D. C. (Jacob L. Holtzmann, of New York City, and Lucien H. Mercier, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for complainant.

Seymour Friedman, of Washington, D. C., Sp. Asst. to the Assoc. Gen. Counsel (Richard H. Field, of Washington, D. C., Gen. Counsel, Jacob D. Hyman, of Buffalo, N. Y., Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Joseph Brenner, of Washington, D. C., Atty., all of the OPA, on the brief), for respondent.

Before MARIS, Chief Judge, and MAGRUDER and LAWS, Judges.

Heard at Washington June 1, 1946.

MAGRUDER, Judge.

This case draws in question the validity of an individual adjustment order issued by the Price Administrator under § 16(a) of Revised Maximum Price Regulation 165 (10 F.R. 2097) regulating the charges for various miscellaneous services. Particularly at issue is the propriety of certain criteria or standards formulated by the Administrator as administrative guides in processing the applications for adjustment.

Complainant is a Delaware corporation, with principal offices in New Orleans, Louisiana, organized in 1942 by a bondholders' protective committee to acquire the assets of the defunct Crescent City Laundries, Inc. It operates ten separate plants in the greater New Orleans area, seven being combination laundry and dry cleaning establishments, one a dry cleaning plant exclusively, one a rug cleaning plant, and one a storage plant. In addition, it operates a central garage for motorized equipment and a central office for accounting, purchasing of supplies and equipment, sales promotion, and supervision and coordination of the company's operations. Its sales volume has been in the neighborhood of $3,000,000 annually, representing about two thirds of all power laundry service performed in the New Orleans area, including all the local work of the Pullman Company, the Maritime Commission, and most of the Army contract laundry service.

Under RMPR 165, complainant's maximum prices are established at the highest prices charged in March, 1942. In this proceeding no challenge is made to any provision of the regulation itself, which must be assumed to be in all respects generally fair and equitable.

Section 16(a) of the regulation makes provision for upward adjustment of individual maximum prices upon a demonstration of substantial financial hardship threatening the applicant's ability to continue supplying a service, subject to certain conditions. The section reads as follows:

"Sec. 16. Adjustments — (a) General adjustments. OPA may adjust any maximum price established under this regulation upon a demonstration of substantial financial hardship threatening your ability to continue to supply a service, subject to the following limitations:

"(1) No adjustment will increase your maximum prices above the levels necessary to permit you to continue the sale of your services;

"(2) No adjustment will be made if it will create or tend to create a need for increases in the prices of other sellers in your locality or elsewhere; and

"(3) No adjustment will increase your maximum prices above the prices at which your customers are able to obtain the same or a fairly equivalent service from other suppliers.

"However, if, in the judgment of OPA, the loss of your services would be detrimental to the effective prosecution of the war or would impair the maintenance of an adequate wartime standard of living, OPA may apply only the first and second of the above limitations.

"In judging whether a maximum price subjects you to substantial financial hardship, OPA will take into account such pertinent factors as the nature of your business, its earnings, and the earnings of your trade as a whole during a representative pre-war period. A price increase may be denied in whole or in part, however, if your hardship is attributable to such causes as a decline in sales volume because of reduced demand, general manpower shortage, shortage of essential supplies, or other difficulties apart from your maximum price. Even though a particular service or type of service is not profitable, an adjustment may be denied in whole or in part if, in the judgment of OPA, such action is justified in view of the profitability of your business as a whole."

Since RMPR 165 applies to a multitude of services, the Administrator has deemed it appropriate to develop various administrative criteria for certain specialized types of service in order that the adjustment provision of § 16(a) might be uniformly administered with due regard to the peculiarities of the particular service under consideration. In this case the Administrator has incorporated into the record an extract from § 5 of the OPA Manual setting forth the criteria for measuring the financial hardship of a seller of laundry services and governing the upper limit to which a seller's prices may be adjusted pursuant to application under § 16(a). The quoted portion of subparagraph B of § 5-1531.03 of the OPA Manual is as follows:

"B. Specific policy on adjustments.

"1. General rule.

"a. Basic limitations. An adjustment of maximum prices will be made to provide:

"(1) Management returns of four percent to concerns whose management returns in 1941 were four percent of sales or less and concerns which were not in business in 1941.

"(2) Management returns equal to their 1941 returns to concerns whose management returns in 1941 were more than 4 percent of sales and not more than eight percent.

"(3) Management returns of eight percent to concerns whose management returns in 1941 were more than eight percent.

"b. Definition of sales. The term `sales,' as used in these instructions, is the actual total amount paid for services by the customers of the applicant. Overcharges, if any, are to be deducted. Where discounts are granted to large customers on a volume basis, only the actual payments made by such customers are to be counted. Total sales include income from sales whether the actual processing is done by the applicant or by another firm.

"c. Definition of management returns. Management returns consist of net operating profit, interest, executive salaries, income and excess profit taxes whether state or federal.

"d. Definition of executive salaries. The following payments and withdrawals are to be treated as executive salaries:

"(1) All payments to and withdrawals by a sole owner, and all payments to and withdrawals by one (presumably the general manager) of two or more owners, partners or officers. Such payments and withdrawals are to be so treated even though all or part is charged by the applicant to `plant supervision,' `route supervision,' or some other expense account, and regardless of the actual work performed by the owner or officer concerned.

"(2) All payments to and withdrawals by absentee partners, and all payments to and withdrawals by a single active partner owning a business in conjunction with one or more absentee partners.

"(3) All payments to and withdrawals by a general manager, or to any of the following when performing the duties of a general manager: A trust or corporation officer or officers, two or more partners, an executive agency, a management company.

"(4) Wages or salaries paid to owners and partners, other than those specified in clauses (1), (2), and (3) immediately above, and to stockholders and relatives of owners in excess of the going rate of wage or salary for the work done by them. In such cases an amount equal to the going rate is to be treated as expense. When a supervisory job is held by a bona fide employee and no attempt is being made to disburse profits to him in the form of wages or salary, his entire salary is to be treated as expense.

"(5) `Going rate of wage or salary' is the wage or salary customarily paid to an employee in an establishment of the same kind and similar size in the same market area during the period under consideration."

The substance of the foregoing specific criteria was put by the Administrator in question and answer form in a "Revised Guide to OPA Price Regulations and Price Adjustments for Power Laundries, Dry Cleaners and Litten Supply Concerns". This Revised Guide was supplied to the trade and published by the American Institute of Laundering for issuance to its members. Following are relevant extracts from the Revised Guide:

"7. Q. — When is a laundry or dry cleaner in hardship?

"A. — It depends on the amount of management return earned by the applicant in 1941. Management return is the difference between total income (from sales) and expense, not including executive salaries and interest in expense. Non-operating receipts and expenditures are not included in the calculation. Maximum prices may be adjusted to yield a return equal to that earned in 1941, provided it is not more than 8%, and to yield at least 4% in any case."

"24. Q. — What payments and withdrawals are considered to be executive salaries?

"A. (1) All withdrawals by a single owner, even though he personally fills many supervisory jobs, and all withdrawals by some one (presumably the manager) of two or more owners, partners, or officers.

"(2) All withdrawals by absentee partners.

"(3) All withdrawals by a general manager.

"(4) A portion of salaries paid to other partners, stockholders, or relatives of owners, in excess of the going rate. (`Going rate' is the amount customarily paid for similar work in laundries of equivalent size in the same area at the same time.) But when owners, partners, etc., hold supervisory jobs, the going rates for such jobs are considered expense. When a supervisory job is held by any one else who is a bona fide employee, his entire salary is expense, although it exceeds the `going rate'."

"25. Q. — Is it any of OPA's business if a concern buries profits in expense accounts?

"A. — OPA does not concern itself...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Fast v. Di Salle
    • United States
    • U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 11 December 1951
    ...set aside by us as not in accordance with law. See City Ice Delivery Co. v. Bowles, Em.App.1945, 150 F.2d 120; New Orleans Laundries, Inc. v. Porter, Em.App.1946, 157 F.2d 1013; Senderowitz v. Clark, Em.App.1947, 162 F.2d 912; Schwalb v. Turney, Em.App. 1948, 170 F.2d 76. But as we have alr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT