United States v. Gordin
| Decision Date | 02 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 4366.,No. 4365,4365 |
| Citation | 9 F.2d 394 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GORDIN (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
J. F. Bohannon, Asst. to Sol. Dept. of Agriculture, of Washington, D. C. (Haveth E. Mau, U. S. Atty., and Harry A. Abrams, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Chase Stewart, of Springfield, Ohio (John M. Cole, of Springfield, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before DONAHUE, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
The United States brought separate actions at law against Wm. H. Gordin and Wm. H. Gordin, administrator of the estate of Richard B. Gordin, deceased, respectively, to recover excess profits made by each of these defendants in the handling of wool of the domestic clip for the year 1918. Each of these cases involved substantially the same questions of fact and law, and it was therefore agreed by counsel that the evidence introduced should be applicable and considered by the District Court equally in both cases. These separate error proceedings were likewise heard and submitted together.
The United States relied for recovery in each case upon regulations issued by the War Industry Board on May 21, 1918, which provided for the licensing of "country dealers," who buy wool from growers for the purpose of selling to central dealers, and declared that "country dealers" should be entitled in the wool business during the year of 1918 to receive a gross profit of 1½ cents per pound on the total season's business, this profit to cover all expenses from grower to loading wool on board cars.
The defendants by answer admitted the creation of the War Industry Board; that it adopted regulations purporting to limit the gross profits of defendants to 1½ cents per pound; that they applied for and obtained the permits; and denied each and every other allegation of the petition. Further answering, the defendants averred that the alleged contract or agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, if any, was obtained by coercion and duress, in that defendant was informed he was required to obtain a permit and sign the alleged agreement, otherwise he would not be permitted to do any business, and that the alleged contract was without any consideration whatever.
In each of these cases the parties waived in writing a trial by jury, and the cause was submitted to the court upon the evidence. The court made no separate findings of facts and law, but found generally on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. Brown
...all along as being within the granted authority. See generally United States v. Gordin, D.C.S.D. Ohio 1922, 287 F. 565, affirmed 6 Cir., 1925, 9 F.2d 394; Nagle v. Loi Hoa, 275 U.S. 475, 48 S.Ct. 160, 72 L.Ed. 381; Copper Queen Consol. Mining Co. v. Territorial Board, 206 U.S. 474, 27 S.Ct.......
-
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLC
...F.2d 1344, 1345 (6th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds , 424 U.S. 961, 96 S.Ct. 1453, 47 L.Ed.2d 729 (1976) ; United States v. Gordin , 9 F.2d 394, 394–95 (6th Cir. 1925) ; Mosher v. Joyce , 51 F. 441, 444 (6th Cir. 1892). The logic underpinning these cases is obvious: It is a rare defen......
- Elkhart Carriage & Motor Car Co. v. Partin