New v. Tribond Sales Corporation
Decision Date | 02 May 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 4447.,4447. |
Citation | 19 F.2d 671 |
Parties | NEW, Postmaster General, v. TRIBOND SALES CORPORATION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Peyton Gordon, L. A. Rover, and C. W. Hassell, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
E. F. Colladay, C. C. Cooper, Jr., and H. S. Barger, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, granting a permanent injunction against the enforcement of a fraud order theretofore issued by the Postmaster General against the Tribond Sales Corporation, the appellee.
On April 6, 1925, the Solicitor for the Post Office Department filed written charges against the appellee, and gave notice that it show cause why a fraud order should not be issued against it. Hearings were had on these charges, resulting, on June 2, 1925, in a comprehensive written report by the Solicitor to the Postmaster General, concluding as follows:
On the day this report was made the Postmaster General, "upon evidence satisfactory to him" (sections 3929 and 4041, R. S. Comp. St. §§ 7411, 7573), issued the fraud order in question. On June 3, 1925, appellee obtained from the court below a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the fraud order, and on June 12th an injunction pendente lite was issued. Thereupon a hearing was had in the court below, resulting, on June 14th, in the permanent injunction from which this appeal was taken.
Appellee's scheme contemplates the sale of so-called "contracts," to each of which is attached three coupons, designated respectively as coupon A, coupon B, and coupon C. The "contract" reads as follows:
On the face of each coupon is the following:
"Tribond Sales Corporation, 1225 Broadway New York. "Coupon ______. $1.00. No. ______. "Holder: ______. (Print name in full.) "______. (Street and number.) "______. (City and state.) "Important: Read other side."
The reverse side of each coupon bears the following:
A blank form is sent to each "contract" purchaser, upon which to report to the corporation the names and addresses of the purchasers of the three coupons, each of whom receives his "contract" on the same conditions as the original purchaser.
The cost of this "contract" to the purchaser is $4. Upon consummation of the purchase he is designated as "the receipt holder." He may sell the three coupons for $1 each, and, "with the consent of the respective purchasers," retain the $3. The "receipt holder" then has $1 invested in the scheme. If and when each of the three "respective purchasers" remits to the appellee $3, the "receipt holder" is entitled to his hosiery without further payment. This hosiery costs appellee $5.50 and is of the reasonable value of $10. It is apparent, therefore, that if the "receipt holder" succeeds in selling the three coupons, and each of the purchasers remits $3 for another "contract" containing three more coupons, the original "receipt holder" receives goods of the value of $10 for an expenditure of $1. In other words, he gets ten for one. If the original "receipt holder" succeeds in selling only two coupons, and each of the purchasers makes return as in the first instance, the "receipt holder" may obtain the hosiery, of the value of $10, by remitting to the corporation $3 and returning the unsold coupon. The "receipt holder," having reduced his original investment of $4 by the sale of the two coupons for $2, thus gets the hosiery for a total investment of $5. He therefore obtains for $5 hosiery of the value of $10, or gets two for one. If the "receipt holder" succeeds in selling but one coupon, he may obtain the hosiery by returning the two unsold coupons and paying $5, so that in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Acret v. Harwood
...194 U.S. 497, 24 S.Ct. 789, 48 L.Ed. 1092; Leach v. Carlile, 1922, 258 U. S. 138, 42 S.Ct. 227, 66 L.Ed. 511; New v. Tribond Sales Corp., 1927, 57 App.D.C. 197, 19 F.2d 671; Plapao Laboratories v. Farley, 1927, 67 App.D.C. 304, 92 F.2d 228, certiorari denied Oct. 18, 1937, 302 U.S. 732, 58 ......
-
People v. Bestline Products, Inc.
...within the first four rounds can earn commissions is entirely possible and credible. As was said in New v. Tribond Sales Corporation, 57 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 19 F.2d 671, 673--674, where an endless-chain scheme which would involve 516,560,852 sales by the fifteenth round was 'While it is unlik......
-
Farley v. Heininger
...a medium for disseminating printed matter which, on grounds of public policy, has been declared to be non-mailable. New v. Tribond Sales Corp., 57 App.D.C. 197, 19 F.2d 671; certiorari denied, 275 U.S. 550, 48 S.Ct. 114, 72 L.Ed. 420; Missouri Drug Co. v. Wyman, C.C.E.D.Mo., 129 F. 623, 625......
-
State by Lefkowitz v. ITM, Inc.
...any advance information in this connection, but the appellee (promoter) is much more advantageously situated in this respect.' 197, 19 F.2d 671, 673--674, where an endless-chain scheme which would involve 516,560,852 sales by the fifteenth round was The rule is clear that where one party to......