Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PORTER v. SAND

June 11, 1946

PORTER
v.
SAND



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KNIGHT

This is a motion for a temporary injunction to restrain defendant from doing business as a custom tailor at Rochester, New York, until he complies with Section 1389.106 of Maximum Price Regulation 177, which reads as follows:

'Sec. 1389.106. Maximum prices for garments which cannot be priced under preceding sections. In those cases in which the maximum price of a garment cannot be determined by the terms of Sections 1389.103, 1389.104 and 1389.105, the maximum price shall be a price determined by the seller pursuant to specific authorization from the Office of Price Administration. A seller who seeks an authorization to determine a maximum price under the provisions of this section shall file with the Office of Price Administration in Washington, D.C., an application setting forth:

 '(a) A description in detail of the garment for which a maximum price is sought; and

 '(b) A statement of the facts which differentiate such garment from garments priced under Sections 1389.103, 1389.104 and 1389.105; and shall furnish such further relevant information as may be required by the Office of Price Administration.'

 It appears that defendant, until September, 1943, was employed as a foreman in the tailor shop of Rochester Custom Tailors of Rochester, New York; that, in September, 1943, he went into business for himself in Rochester, New York, under the name of Sandy Custom Tailors. His total business for the balance of that year was $ 4,663.50. In his letter of April 20, 1946, addressed to OPA at Buffalo, New York, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff's memorandum, he wrote:

 'Garments sold -- Men's Suits -- Custom Made

 Description of garments made here --

 Men's Suit Coats -- (Pants and Vests sent out to be made)

 Class of Trade -- Individual ultimate Consumer

 Manufacture -- Inside Shop.'

 Defendant never complied with said Sec. 1389.106 of MPR 177.

 Plaintiff urges that

 '(a) If he (defendant) is exempt from the provisions of MPR 607, he is still operating under MPR 177 and must comply with its provisions.

 '(b) If he is governed by MPR 607, he must get in compliance with MPR 177 because his operations under MPR 177 were not legal and he must have legal prices and legal highest price line, which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.