U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1946

Haines v. Porter

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 25, 1946

158 F.2d 188; 81 U.S. App. D.C. 318; 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. John L. Ingoldsby, Jr., of Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Albert M. Dreyer, Chief, Appellate-Branch, O.P.A., of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. David London, Director, Litigaton Division, O.P.A., of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee., Mr. J. Grahame Walker, District Enforcement Atty., O.P.A., of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Vicknair v. Bonneval (La. Ct. App. 1950)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree for an injunction and treble damages founded upon the sale of appellant’s automobile above a ceiling price fixed pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act. 56 Stat. 33, §: 205(a) and (e), as amended, 58 Stat. 640,. 50 U.S.C.A.War Appendix, § 925(a) and. (e). Appellant is a dealer in automobiles. It is not disputed that he owned the automobile and that it was willfully sold by his regular salesman at a price above the-ceiling. Appellant denies that he personally participated in the violation of the Act and attacks the evidence which tended to show that he did so. But we need not consider whether that evidence was competent and sufficient, for personal participation -by the owner of a business is not necessary to his civil responsibility for vio-*189latious of the Act by his agents. Bowles v. Lee’s Ice Cream, Inc., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 148 F.2d 113; Jung v. Bowles, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 726; Di Melia v. Bowles, 1 Cir., 148 F.2d 725, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 886, 65 S.Ct. 1581, 89 L.Ed. 2000; Talbert v. Sims, 4 Cir., 143 F.2d 958; Carter v. Bowles, D.C.S.C., 56 F.Supp. 278; Bowles v. Dietter, D.C.Conn., 61 F.Supp. 880.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.