Opinion
No. 9241.
Argued October 15, 1946.
Decided November 25, 1946.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
Action by Paul A. Porter, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, against Willis L. Haines, trading as Haines Motor Company, for an injunction and treble damages founded upon the sale of an automobile at over ceiling prices. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
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.
Before EDGERTON, CLARK and WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justices.
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 violations 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.