(Download) "Glover v. Mitchell" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Glover v. Mitchell
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 02, 1946
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
LUMMUS, Justice. These cases were brought in the Superior Court by two housewives who purchased beefsteak at retail from the
defendant on two occasions in September, 1943, to recover as provided by law for overcharges above the maximum price prescribed
by the Office of Price Administration. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 205(e), Act of January 30, 1942, c.
26, 56 U.S. Sts. at Large, 23, 33, as amended by Stabilization Extension Act of 1944, § 108(b), Act of June 30,
1944, c. 325, 58 U. S. Sts. at Large, 632, 640, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e). After a hearing without jury, a Judge
made a finding for the plaintiff in each case in the sum of $50. The cases are here upon the exceptions of the defendant to
the refusal in cash case of a requested ruling that 'on all the evidence and the law a finding for the plaintiffs is not warranted.'
There is nothing in the question of constitutionality. Schaffer v. Leimberg, 318 Mass. 396, 62 N.E.2d 193. Neither is there
anything in the point that the plaintiffs participated in the overcharges by buying in violation of the regulation fixing
the maximum price. There was no evidence that required the Judge to find that the plaintiffs made the purchases for the purpose
of entrapping the defendant in a violation of a regulation, or that the plaintiffs even knew at the time of the purchases
that the defendant was making a sale in violation of a regulation. See Dunakin v. Southwestern Consumers Co-operative Association,
49 N.M. 69, 157 P.2d 243. The statute penalizes a purchase in violation of a regulation only when made 'in the course of trade
or business,' and that refers to the trade or business of the purchaser. Section 4(a) of the act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §
904(a). The purchases in question were not so made, but were purchases by housewives. See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand
Co., 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 482. Even if the violation of the regulations by the defendant was unintentional, that fact was immaterial
at the time. Thierry v. Gilbert, 1 Cir., 147 F.2d 603; Bowles v. Franceshini, 1 Cir., 145 F.2d 510. The only other substantial point argued by the defendant is that there was no evidence of the existence of any regulation
that could be violated. The plaintiffs, and the administrator of the Office of Price Administration appearing as amicus curiae,
suggest that the court below as well as this court is required to take judicial notice of the regulations made by the administrator.
No specific regulation was brought to the attention of the trial court.
 "Glover v. Mitchell" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}