BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR,
v.
PATRICK LUMBER CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's interpretation of the regulation, finding the prices charged were within the maximums, was supported by substantial evidence.
The Price Administrator sued for damages, alleging sales of lumber exceeded maximum prices under RMPR No. 26. The trial court found the prices charged…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse General Maximum Price Regulation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Price Administrator appeals from an adverse judgment in a suit for damages for sales of Douglas fir dimension lumber at prices allegedly in excess of the maximum contemplated by RMPR No. 26.
The question on the appeal concerns the interpretation of the regulation. The trial court found that the prices charged were not in excess of the maximum prescribed in Table 2, § 23, of the regulation, which table appellee had thought applicable to the transaction. The Administrator claims that this table fixed no price for the dimensions sold and that accordingly § 12 of the regulation came into play. This section provides that “if a seller wishes to sell a grade which is not specifically priced in the price tables, or wishes to make an addition for special workings, specifications, services, or other extras for which additions are not specifically permitted,” he must apply for a maximum price.
We are not disposed to disturb the determination below that Table 2 was applicable to the peculiar facts of the case. As the court observed, the question involved is a technical one in the industry. There was substantial evidence to support the finding made.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1946)
-
DuVERNAY v. United States, 394 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
Vaughn v. United States, 404 F.2d 586 (8th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence