United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 10909.,10909. |
| Citation | United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co., 8 F.Supp. 535 (W.D. Okla. 1934) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. KINNEBREW MOTOR CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
William C. Lewis, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl., and A. W. De Birny, Associate Counsel, NRA, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
J. B. Dudley, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Herbert K. Hyde, Duke Duvall, and Paul Dudley, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for defendants.
The defendants in this action are charged by indictment with violation of the Act of Congress of June 16, 1933, known as the National Industrial Recovery Act (48 Stat. 195).
It is charged that the Kinnebrew Motor Company, an Oklahoma corporation, and Jackson A. Kinnebrew, defendants, are local dealers in Oklahoma City in Nash automobiles, and as said dealers purchase new Nash cars from the Nash Motor Company at Kenosha, Wis., and have the automobiles shipped to their place of business in Oklahoma City, Okl., where said automobiles are sold at retail, and where said defendants allow to purchasers of new cars a trade-in value for used cars.
The indictment further alleges that the said defendants are engaged in a retail business which constitutes interstate commerce in that the prices fixed for new cars, and the prices paid for used cars, affect and burden interstate commerce throughout the country.
The indictment further alleges that, by virtue of the power vested in the President of the United States by said act, and delegated by the President to the National Administrator of the Automobile Code, a certain code was adopted by the President on the recommendation of the National Administrator, which code fixes the prices at which new cars may be sold, and the prices which may be allowed for secondhand automobiles as credit on the purchase price of new automobiles.
The first count charges that the defendants did unlawfully sell one 1934 Nash automobile as a demonstrator for the sum of $800 which was less than the full retail price of $1,004.95, in a transaction in and affecting interstate commerce; that said automobile, manufactured in the state of Wisconsin for the purpose of sale in the state of Oklahoma, had not been in use for a period of sixty days from the date of registration with the Advisory Committee for the state of Oklahoma, and had not been registered at any time as provided by article 4, section B, paragraph 1 of the aforesaid Code, or by any regulation of the Administrator so made, adopted, and approved under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act; that said defendants did then and there knowingly, wilfully, and unlawfully commit a certain offense against the United States, to wit, violate article 4, section B, paragraph 1, in a transaction in and affecting interstate commerce, and by reason thereof did become subject to the provision of section 3(f) of the aforesaid National Industrial Recovery Act (15 USCA § 703(f), and so forth.
The second count charges that the defendants did unlawfully accept in trade a used Nash Victoria coupé at an allowance price of $181.22, in a transaction in and affecting interstate commerce, when the allowance price fixed by the code for such car was $25 as ascertained by the Administrator for Industrial Recovery, and so forth.
Count 3 charges that the defendants did unlawfully represent that the sale price of a 1934 Nash Town sedan was $1,005; whereas, in truth and in fact the sale price of said car was $899 delivered in Oklahoma City.
In count 4 the indictment charges that the defendants did unlawfully accept in trade a certain used Nash Special sedan at an allowance price of $200 in a transaction in and affecting interstate commerce, which used automobile had a value of $25 under the code as ascertained by the Administrator for Industrial Recovery.
The defendants have filed their joint and separate demurrers to each and all of the counts of said indictment, the said demurrers alleging that sections 701, 702 (a, b), 703 (a, b, c, d, f), 704 (a, b), 705, 706 (a, b, c), and 707 (a, b, c, d) of title 15, USCA, sections 1, 2(a, b), 3(a, b, c, d, f), 4(a, b), 5, 6(a-c), 7 (a-d) of the Act of Congress of June 16, 1933, known as the National Industrial Recovery Act, being the act referred to in said indictment, and the Code of Fair Competition for the Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade adopted October 3, 1933, pursuant thereto, and particularly section B, paragraph 1, and section A, paragraphs 2 and 5 of article 4 thereof, being the code and provisions thereof referred to in said indictment, are void and violative of (a) section 1, article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, (b) the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and (c) the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The demurrers also allege that the business transactions referred to and set out in said indictment are private ones in which these defendants had a right to engage under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; that the Congress of the United States is without power to regulate, restrict, or restrain these defendants in such business transactions under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and said demurrers further allege that the business transactions referred to and set out in said indictment are not interstate transactions; that the Congress of the United States has no power to legislate concerning the same under section 8, article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, the commerce clause thereof; that Congress exceeded its authority in passing said act; and that such act and the code adopted thereunder are void and in violation of said commerce clause.
The demurrers further alleged that said indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense under any valid law of the United States.
The statute under which the offense in this indictment is charged is the Act of Congress approved June 16, 1933, known as the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the pertinent provisions of the act are the following:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 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 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 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 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 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 Free Trial
-
United States v. Riggen, 4554.
...States v. Greenwood Dairy Farms (D. C.) 8 F. Supp. 398; United States v. Eason Oil Co. (D. C.) 8 F. Supp. 365; United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co. (D. C.) 8 F. Supp. 535. As a finding of ultimate fact and conclusion of law, I must conclude that, although the defendant is violating the prov......
-
United States v. Morgan
...Hart Coal Corporation v. Sparks (D. C.) 7 F. Supp. 16; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp (D. C.) 7 F. Supp. 139; United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co. (D. C.) 8 F. Supp. 535; United States v. Eason Oil Co. (D. C.) 8 F. Supp. 365; United States v. James W. McAlister, Inc. (D. C.) 8 F. Supp. From......