BOWLES, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES,
v.
BARKER
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 a farmer purchasing equipment for their own use, not for resale, is a purchase 'for use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business' under the Emergency Price Control Act.
The Administrator of the Office of Price Administration sued to recover triple damages for the sale of used farm equipment at prices exceeding the max…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The Administrator of the Office of Price Administration appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his suit to recover triple damages for the sale by appel-lee of certain used farm equipment at prices in excess of the maximum established by the provisions of Maximum Price Regulation No. 133.
The sole question presented by the appeal is whether the purchase by a farmer of equipment for use in his own farming and not for resale constitutes a purchase “for use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business” within the meaning of § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925(e), so as to vest the statutory right of action for a price overcharge under that section in the purchaser instead of in the Administrator. This court has already passed on the precise question here presented, deciding it adversely to the defendant. See Bowles v. Rogers, 7 Cir., 149 F. 2d 1010. The same conclusion has been reached in other cases subsequently decided by other Circuit Courts of Appeal. See Bowles v. Madl, 10 Cir., 153 F. 2d 21; Bowles v. Trullinger, 9 Cir., 152 F. 2d 191; Bowles v. Whayne, 6 Cir., 152 F. 2d 375.
Judgment reversed on the authority of Bowles v. Rogers, supra, and other cases cited.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fleming, 159 F.2d 212 (7th Cir. 1947)
Authorities Cited
- Bowles v. Rogers, 149 F.2d 1010 (7th Cir. 1945)
- Bowles v. Trullinger, 152 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1945)
- Bowles v. Whayne, 152 F.2d 375 (6th Cir. 1945)
- Bowles v. Madl, 153 F.2d 21 (10th Cir. 1946)